^smmw^    ^/simmi^ 


:^ 


^immC{0/^        4^1-UBRARYQ^        ^5J\EUNIVERS/;^       ^lOSANCElfj^ 


"^^AMVJian^ 


/5X\EUNIVERS/A 


^<?Aavaani^       <<^3Nvs(n^ 


"^/fliaAINrtJWV^ 


^10SANCEI% 

o 


^5XIEUNIVE1% 


^lOSANCEl^^ 


^lUBRARYO^ 


^^?U3NVS(n=^ 


^WSMEl^^ 


^OF-CALIF0% 


^OFCAUFOff^ 


<>^]35Nvso#    '^/SfflAlNn•3\^^       "^omm^ 


^  /«-^l    I'  £? 


^ 


? 


^^•UBRARYOa.       ^^-UBRARYQa. 


^OJITVD^iO'^     '^nVD-iO'^ 


^0FCAUF0«|(^      ^OFCAUFOft^ 


j^5ji\EUNIVER%. 


^10S|ANCnfx^ 


1 
^5SIEUNIVER% 


>&AavHan-#     ^mmit^ 


.5MEUNIVFRI/A       AvlOSAKCn^f^ 


^lUBRARYQc^ 


'^'SaaMNfl-av^^ 


^^l-UBRARY^?/- 


m,  |(Si  <>Jli  WII 


i 


ei: 


%ii3AiNn3y\v^ 


^lUBRARYOf 


^OFCAllFORj^ 


^V\EUNIVERS/A 


^lUBRARYQr         ^uUBRAir 


%)jnv3jo^       <r^3Nvsoi^     %a3AJN(i3WV^       ^^wiiVDjo'^    ^«)jnv> 


^^WEUNIVER% 


^lOSANCFl^^ 


^mjOKVSOl^        %a3AlNll3WV 


A\lOSANCEL£n> 

O 


"^/iJGAINflJWV^ 


^lOSANCElfj^ 


5  1    1/-^  ^ 


^OFCAIIFO^^ 


^OFCAllFOfi'^ 


%a3MNn3VCv^      ^^AHvaani^ 


,^WEUNIVER5/A 


'^^awsoi'^ 


^^WEUNIVERJ/^ 


^lOSANCEl 


■^/yaiAiNn-] 


^lUBRARYi?^ 


^OFCAIIFOIK^ 


clOSANCEUj> 


^iwmv?)^ 


^•lOSANCEl£r>, 
o 


^5»EUN1VER% 


%a3AlNIHWV 
^lOSANCEUr^ 


^J^UDNVSOl^ 


"^aBAiNnmv^ 


4^iUBRARY^^        ^tUBRARYOc. 


§  1   ir^  ^ 


^OFCAUFOR^ 


^AaviwiH^ 


i^EUNIVERS//i 


% 


A^lUBRAir 

m 

^OFCAIIFC 

ilin 

>&AHVa8I> 
^lOSANCn 


NEW   EDITION 


Babylonian  Talmud 


©riQlual  Tlejt  JE^(tc^,  Gorrcctc&,  JFormulate^,  anO 
XTranslatcD  into  lEuoltsb 

BY 

MICHAEL  L.  RODKINSON 


first  EMtlon  1?ev(6eD  anD  CorrcctcO 

liV 

THE    REV.    DR.    ISAAC    M.    WISE 

President  Hebrew  Union  Cullet;e,  Cincinnati,  O. 


Volume    I. 
TRACT   SABBATH 


SECOND  EDITION,    RE-EDITED,   REVISED  AND   ENLARGED 


Boston 

THE  TALMUD  SOCIETY 

1918 


81331 


EXPLANATORY   REMARKS. 

In  our  translation  we  adopted  these  principles: 

).  Tenan  of  the  original — We  have  learned  in  a  Mishna;  Tania—Vft  li*Te 
learned  in  a  Boraitha;  Itemar — It  was  taught. 

3.  Questions  are  indicated  by  the  interrogation  point,  and  are  immediately 
followed  by  the  answers,  without  being  so  marked. 

3.  When  in  the  original  there  occur  two  statements  separated  by  the  phrase, 
Lishiui  iichrena  or  Waibayith  Aetna  ox  Ikha  ^'awrz  (literally,  "otherwise  interpreted  "), 
we  translate  only  the  second. 

4.  As  the  pages  of  the  original  are  indicated  in  our  new  Hebrew  edition,  it  is  not 
deemed  necessary  to  mark  them  in  the  English  edition,  this  being  only  a  translation 
from  the  latter. 

5.  Words  or  passages  enclosed  in  round  parentheses  (  )  denote  the  explanation 
rendered  by  Rashi  to  the  foregoing  sentence  or  word.  Square  parentheses  [  ]  contain 
commentaries  by  authorities  of  the  last  period  of  construction  of  the  Gemara. 


COPYKIGMT,   1903,  BT 

MICHAEL  L.  RODKINSON. 


Copyright  1916,  by 
NEW  TALMUD  I'UBLKSlliNG  SOCIETY 


TO 

EDWIN   R.   A.   SELIGMAN,    Pii.D. 
Professor  of  Political  Science  at  Columbia  University 

in  recognition  of 

VIS  WARM  INTEREST  AND  VALUABLE  SERVICES  IN  PROMOTING  THE 
STUDY  OF  LITERATURE,  AND  HIS  GREAT  INSTRUMENTALITY  IN  ASSISTING 
YOUNG  MEN  AND  WOMEN  TO  BROADEN  THEIR  MINDS.  AND  REACH  A 
HIGHER  SOCIAL  PLANE,  AND  FOR  HIS  MANY  WORKS  FOR  THE  COMMUNAL 
WELFARE,  ESPECIALLY    THOSE    IN    BEHALF    OF    THE 

EDUCATIONAL    ALLIANCE 

THIS   VOLUME   IS    MOST    RESPECTFULLY    DEDICATED    BY  THE 
EDITOR    AND    TRANSLATOR 

MICHAEL   L.   RODKINSON. 

June  15,  1901. 
New  York  City. 


:^ 


CONTENTS, 


Preface  to  the  Second  Edition          ....  vii 

►      Editor's  Preface ix 

N.     Brief  General  Introduction  to  the  Babylonian  Talmud  xv 

, -v   Introduction  to  Tract  Sabbath xxi 

Synopsis  of  Subjects  of  Volume  I. — Tract  Sabbath         .  xxix 


CHAPTER   I. 
Regulations  concerning  Transfer  on  Sabbath 

CHAPTER   n. 

Regulations   concerning    the    Sabbath    and    'Hanukah 
Light 


31 


CHAPTER   III. 


1 

'H    Regulations  concerning  Stoves,  Hearths,  and  Ovens       .       63 


CHAPTER   IV. 

Regulations  concerning  the  Depositing  of  Victuals  on 

the  Sabbath 83 

CHAPTER  V. 

Regulations  concerning  Gear  which  May  and  May  Not 

BE  Worn  by  Animals  on  the  Sabbath  ...  91 

CHAPTER   VI. 

Regulations  concerning  What  Garments  (serving  as 
Ornaments)  Women  May  Go  Out  with  on  the 
Sabbath 107 


vi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   VII. 

PAGB 

The   General  Rule   concerning    the  Principal  Acts  of 

Labor  on  Sabbath 127 

CHAPTER   VIII. 

Regulations  concerning  the  Prescribed  Quantity  of 
Victuals  and  Beverages  which  Must  Not  be  Carried 
about  on  the  Sabbath 143 

CHAPTER   IX. 
Kabbi  Aqiba's  Regulations  on  Different  Subjects  •     154 

CHAPTER   X. 

Further  Regulations  concerning  the  Prescribed  Quan- 
tity OF  Things  to  be  Stored 171 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


The  translator  of  the  Talmud,  who  has  now  reached  the 
thirteenth  volume  of  his  task,  covering  twenty-one  tracts  of  this 
great  work,  certainly  cannot  point  with  any  great  pride  to  the 
fact  that  this  is  the  second  edition  of  his  translation  which  first 
appeared  in  1896,  for  he  believes  that  the  opening  and  bringing 
to  light  of  a  book  so  long  withheld  from  the  gaze  of  the  curious, 
and  even  the  learned,  should  have  attracted  more  attention  and 
deserved  greater  consideration  than  it  has  received.  However, 
he  is  glad  to  see  that  thousands  of  readers  have  at  last  taken 
advantage  of  the  opportunity  of  looking  into  the  "  sealed  book," 
and  to  such  an  extent  that  second  editions  have  become  neces- 
sary, both  of  this  volume  and  of  the  Tract  Rosh  Hashana  of 
the  fourth  volume,  which  he  hasreedited  and  enlarged  upon,  add- 
ing many  historical  facts  and  legends,  so  that  they  now  appear  as 
practically  new  works. 

This  is  certainly  an  encouragement  to  him  to  continue  his 
work,  with  the  hope  that  in  time  it  will  gain  the  proper  rec- 
ognition and  proper  attention  w^hich  he  thinks  this  great  work 
of  the  sixth  century  should  receive  at  the  hands  of  all  scholars 
and  even  laymen. 

In  revising  this  volume  the  translator  had  in  mind  the  many 
criticisms  which  have  been  passed  upon  his  effort  and  which  have 
appeared  in  various  papers  throughout  different  countries,  but  he 
gave  his  attention  to  those  only  which  were  not  prompted  by 
animosity  and  jealousy.  He  begs  to  call  the  attention  of  all 
critics  to  the  dictum  of  the  Talmud,  "  Kal  Hat'hi^ioth  Kashoth  " 
(all  beginnings  are  difficult) ;  for,  bearing  this  in  mind,  they  would 
no  doubt  have  been  more  moderate. 


viii  PREFACE   TO   THE    SECOND    EDITION. 

The  translator  will  be  very  grateful  to  critics  who  will  call  his 
attention  to  any  mistakes  made  in  the  translation  of  the  original 
text.  However,  he  will  positively  ignore  criticisms  of  the  kind 
described  above. 

The  translator  further  hopes  that  this  and  the  succeeding 
volumes  will  meet  with  the  favor  and  approval  of  the  public, 
which  will  be  sufficient  reward  to  repay  him  for  his  efforts. 

M.  L.  R. 

New  York,  June,  1901. 


EDITOR'S    PREFACE. 

[TV  tkt first  edition^ 


The  Hebrew  edition  of  Rosh  Hashana  contains  an  elaborate 
introduction  in  three  chapters,  the  translation  of  which  does  not 
appear  as  yet.  Its  contents  include  many  important  rules  which 
we  have  followed  in  the  entire  work,  but  we  do  not  feel  called 
upon  at  this  time  to  engross  the  time  of  the  English  reader  by 
reciting  them.  We,  however,  deem  it  a  duty  to  say  a  few  words, 
so  that  the  reader  may  understand  our  position  and  the  reason 
why  we  have  undertaken  a  work  which  will  probably  be  produc- 
tive of  much  adverse  criticism  in  certain  quarters. 

The  fate  of  the  Talmud  has  been  the  fate  of  the  Jews.  As 
soon  as  the  Hebrew  was  born*  he  was  surrounded  by  enemies. 
His  whole  history  has  been  one  of  struggle  against  persecution 
and  attack.  Defamation  and  deformation  have  been  his  lot.  So, 
too,  has  it  been  with  the  Talmud.  At  the  beginning  of  its  for- 
mative period,  viz.,  the  development  of  the  Mishna,  it  was  beset 
by  such  enemies  as  the  Sadducees,  the  Boethusians,  and  other 
sects,  not  to  mention  the  Roman  Government. f  When  its 
canon  was  fixed,  the  Karaites  tried  to  destroy  or  belittle  its  influ- 
ence, and  since  that  time  it  has  been  subjected  to  an  experience 
of  unvarying  diflficulty.  Yet,  with  remarkable  truth,  the  words 
of  Isaiah  [xliii.  2]  may  be  applied  to  both  :  "  When  thou  passest 
through  the  waters,  I  will  be  with  thee ;  and  through  the  rivers, 
they  shall  not  overflow  thee ;  when  thou  walkest  through  the  fire, 
thou  shalt  not  be  burned ;  neither  shall  the  flame  kindle  upon 
thee."  There  is,  however,  one  point  concerning  which  this  simile 
is  not  true.  The  Jew  has  advanced  ;  the  Talmud  has  remained 
stationary. 

Since  the  time  of  Moses  Mendelssohn  the  Jew  has  made  vast 
strides  forward.     There  is  to-day  no  branch  of  human  activity  in 

♦  Vide  Genesis,  xliii.  32. 

f  In  our  forthcoming  "  History  of  the  Talmud  "  the  reader  will  find  all  details 
of  the  persecution,  until  the  present  time,  in  twenty  chapters. 


X  EDITOR'S    PREFACE. 

which  his  influence  is  not  felt.  Interesting  himself  in  the  affairs 
of  the  world,  he  has  been  enabled  to  bring  a  degree  of  intelligence 
and  industry  to  bear  upon  modern  life  that  has  challenged  the 
admiration  of  the  world.  But  with  the  Talmud  it  is  not  so. 
That  vast  encyclopaedia  of  Jewish  lore  remains  as  it  was.  No 
improvement  has  been  possible ;  no  progress  has  been  made  with 
it.  Issue  after  issue  has  appeared,  but  it  has  always  been  called 
the  Talmud  Babli,  as  chaotic  as  it  was  when  its  canon  was  origi- 
nally appointed.*  Commentary  upon  commentary  has  appeared; 
every  issue  of  the  Talmud  contains  new  glosses  from  promi- 
nent scholars,  proposing  textual  changes,  yet  the  text  of  the 
Talmud  has  not  received  that  heroic  treatment  that  will  alone 
enable  us  to  say  that  the  Talmud  has  been  improved.  Few 
books  have  ever  received  more  attention  than  this  vast  store- 
house of  Jewish  knowledge.  Friends  and  enemies  it  has  had. 
Attack  after  attack  has  been  made  upon  it,  and  defence  after 
defence  made  for  it ;  yet  whether  its  enemies  or  its  defenders 
have  done  it  more  harm  it  would  be  hard  to  tell.  Not,  forsooth, 
that  we  do  not  willingly  recognize  that  there  have  been  many 
learned  and  earnest  spirits  who  have  labored  faithfully  in  its  be- 
half; but  for  the  most  part,  if  the  Talmud  could  speak,  it  would 
say,  "  God  save  me  from  my  friends  !  "  For  the  friends  have, 
generally,  defended  without  due  knowledge  of  that  stupendous 
monument  of  rabbinical  lore;  and  the  enemies  have  usually 
attacked  it  by  using  single  phrases  or  epigrams  disconnected  from 
their  context,  by  which  method  anything  could  be  proven.  In 
both  cases  ignorance  has  been  fatal.  For,  how  many  have  read 
the  whole  Talmud  through  and  are  thus  competent  to  judge  of 
its  merits?  Is  it  right  to  attack  or  defend  without  sufficient 
information  ?  Is  it  not  a  proof  of  ignorance  and  unfairness  to 
find  fault  with  that  of  which  we  are  not  able  to  give  proper  testi- 
mony ? 

Let  us  take  the  case  of  those  persons  in  particular  who  attacked 
the  Talmud  and  made  it  the  object  of  their  venomous  vitupera- 
tion. Is  it  possible  that  they  could  have  believed  it  a  work  capa- 
ble of  teaching  the  monstrous  doctrines  so  frequently  attributed  to 
it,  when  that  work  says,  among  other  things,  "  When  one  asks  for 
food,  no  questions  shall  be  asked  as  to  who  he  is,  but  he  must 
immediately  be  given  either  food  or  money  "  ?  Could  a  work  be 
accused  of  frivolity  and  pettiness  that  defines  wickedness  to  be 

*  Vide  Brief  Introduction. 


EDITOR'S    PREFACE.  xi 

"the  action  of  a  rich  man  who,  hearing  that  a  poor  man  is  about 
to  buy  a  piece  of  property,  secretly  overbids  him  '*  ?  (Qiddushin, 
59<7.)  Could  there  be  a  higher  sense  of  true  charity  than  that 
conveyed  by  the  following  incident  ?  Mar  Uqba  used  to  support 
a  poor  man  by  sending  him  on  the  eve  of  each  Day  of  Atonement 
four  hundred  zuz.  When  the  rabbi's  son  took  the  money  on 
one  occasion  he  heard  the  poor  man's  wife  say,  "  Which  wine 
shall  I  put  on  the  table  ?  Which  perfume  shall  I  sprinkle  around 
the  room?"  The  son,  on  hearing  these  remarks,  returned  with 
the  money  to  his  father  and  told  him  of  what  he  had  heard. 
Said  Mar  Uqba:  "Was  that  poor  man  raised  so  daintily  that  he 
requires  such  luxuries?  Go  back  to  him  and  give  him  double 
the  sum?"  (Ketuboth.  ya.)  This  is  not  recorded  by  the  Talmud 
as  an  exception  ;  but  it  is  the  Talmudical  estimate  of  charity. 
The  Talmud  is  free  from  the  narrowness  and  bigotry  with  which 
it  is  usually  charged,  and  if  phrases  used  out  of  their  context,  and 
in  a  sense  the  very  reverse  from  that  which  their  author  intended, 
are  quoted  against  it,  we  may  be  sure  that  those  phrases  never 
existed  in  the  original  Talmud,  but  are  the  later  additions  of  its 
enemies  and  such  as  never  studied  it.  When  it  is  remembered 
that  before  the  canon  of  the  Talmud  was  finished,  in  the  sixth 
century,*  it  had  been  growing  for  more  than  six  hundred  years, 
and  that  afterward  it  existed  in  fragmentary  manuscripts  for 
eight  centuries  until  the  first  printed  edition  appeared  ;  that  dur- 
ing the  whole  of  that  time  it  was  beset  by  ignorant,  unrelenting, 
and  bitter  foes ;  that  marginal  notes  were  easily  added  and  in 
after  years  easily  embodied  in  the  text  by  unintelligent  copyists 
and  printers,  such  a  theory  as  here  advanced  seems  not  at  all  im- 
probable. 

The  attacks  on  the  Talmud  have  not  been  made  by  the  ene- 
mies of  the  Jews  alone.  Large  numbers  of  Jews  themselves 
repudiate  it,  denying  that  they  are  Talmud  Jews,  or  that  they 
have  any  sympathy  with  it.  Yet  there  are  only  the  few  Karaites 
in  Russia  and  Austria,  and  the  still  fewer  Samaritans  in  Palestine, 
who  are  really  not  Talmud  Jews.  Radical  and  Reform,  Conser- 
vative and  Orthodox,  not  only  find  their  exact  counterparts  in 
the  Talmud,  but  also  follow  in  many  important  particulars  the 
practices  instituted  through  the  Talmud,  e.g.,  New  Year's  Day, 
Pentecost  (so  far  as  its  date  and  significance  are  concerned),  the 
Qaddish,  etc.     The  modern  Jew  is  the  product  of  the  Talmud, 

•  According  to  others,  in  the  eighth  century.     See  our  "  History  of  the  Talmud.' 


xu  EDITOR'S    PREFACE. 

which  we  shall  find  is  a  work  of  the  greatest  sympathies,  the 
most  liberal  impulses,  and  the  widest  humanitarianism.  Even 
the  Jewish  defenders  have  played  into  the  enemy's  hands  by 
their  weak  defences,  of  which  such  expressions  as  "  Remember 
the  age  in  which  it  was  written,"  or  "  Christians  are  not  meant  by 
'gentiles,'  but  only  the  Romans,  or  the  people  of  Asia  Minor," 
etc.,  may  be  taken  as  a  type. 

Amid  its  bitter  enemies  and  weak  friends  the  Talmud  has 
suffered  a  martyrdom.  Its  eventful  history  is  too  well  known  to 
require  detailing  here.  We  feel  that  every  attack  on  it  is  an  at- 
tack upon  the  Jew.  We  feel  that  defence  by  the  mere  citation 
of  phrases  is  useless  and  at  the  best  weak.  To  answer  the  attacks 
made  upon  it  through  ludicrous  and  garbled  quotations  were 
idle.  There  is  only  one  defence  that  can  be  made  in  behalf  of 
the  Talmud.     Let  it  plead  its  own  cause  in  a  modern  language! 

What  is  this  Talmud  of  which  we  have  said  so  much  ?  What 
is  that  work  on  which  so  many  essays  and  sketches,  articles  and 
books,  have  been  written?  The  best  reply  will  be  an  answer  in 
negative  form.  The  Talmud  is  not  a  commentary  on  the  Bible ; 
nor  should  the  vein  of  satire  or  humor  that  runs  through  it  be 
taken  for  sober  earnestness.*  Nor  is  the  Talmud  a  legal  code, 
for  it  clearly  states  that  one  must  not  derive  a  law  for  practical 
application  from  any  halakhic  statement,  nor  even  from  a  prece- 
dent, unless  in  either  case  it  be  expressly  said  that  the  law  or 
statement  is  intended  as  a  practical  rule  [Baba  Bathra,  130^]. 
Further:  R.  Issi  asked  of  R.  Jo'hanan:  "What  shall  we  do  if  you 
pronounce  a  law  to  be  a  Halakha?"  to  which  R.  Jo'hanan  replied: 
"  Do  no  act  in  accordance  with  it  until  you  have  heard  from  me, 
•  Go  and  practice.'  "  Neither  is  the  Talmud  a  compilation  of 
fixed  regulations,  although  the  Shul'han  Arukh  would  make  it 
appear  so.  Yet,  even  when  the  Shul'han  Arukh  will  be  forgotten, 
the  Talmud  will  receive  the  respect  and  honor  of  all  who  love 
liberty,  both  mental  and  religious.  It  lives  and  will  live,  because 
of  its  adaptability  to  the  necessities  of  every  age,  and  if  any  proof 
were  needed  to  show  that  it  is  not  dead,  the  attacks  that  are  with 
remarkable  frequency  made  on  it  in  Germany  might  be  given  as 
the  strongest  evidence.  In  its  day  the  Talmud  received,  not  the 
decisions,  but  the  debates  of  the  leaders  of  the  people.  It  was 
an  independent  critic,  as  it  were,  adapting  itself  to  the  spirit  of 
the  times ;  adding  where  necessary  to  the  teachings  of  former 

*  Sec  our  article,  "  What  is  tlie  Talmud?"  in  the  prospectus. 


EDITOR'S    TREFACE.  xiii 

days,  and  abrogating  also  what  had  become  vahicless  in  its  day. 
In  other  words,  tlie  Tahnud  was  the  embodiment  of  the  spirit  of 
the  people,  recording  its  words  and  thoughts,  its  hopes  and  aims, 
and  its  opinions  on  every  branch  of  thought  and  action.  Reli- 
gion and  Ethics,  Education,  Law,  History,  Geography,  Medicine, 
Mathematics,  etc.,  were  all  discussed.  It  dealt  with  living  issues 
in  the  liveliest  manner,  and,  therefore,  it  is  living,  and  in  reading 
it  we  live  over  again  the  lives  of  its  characters. 

Nothing  could  be  more  unfair,  nothing  more  unfortunate  than 
to  adopt  the  prevailing  false  notions  about  this  ancient  encyclo- 
paedia. Do  not  imagine  it  is  the  bigoted,  immoral,  narrow  work 
that  its  enemies  have  portrayed  it  to  be.  On  the  very  contrary ; 
in  its  statements  it  is  as  free  as  the  wind.  It  permits  no  shackles, 
no  fetters  to  be  placed  upon  it.  It  knows  no  authority  but  con- 
science and  reason.  It  is  the  bitterest  enemy  of  all  superstition 
and  all  fanaticism. 

But  why  speak  for  it  ?  Let  it  open  its  mouth  and  speak  in 
its  own  defence !  How  can  it  be  done?  The  Talmud  must  be 
translated  into  the  modern  tongues  and  urge  its  own  plea.  All 
that  we  have  said  for  it  would  become  apparent,  if  it  were  only 
read.  Translation  !  that  is  the  sole  secret  of  defence  !  In  trans- 
lating it,  however,  we  find  our  path  bristling  with  difficulties.  To 
reproduce  it  as  it  is  in  the  original  is  in  pur  judgment  an  impos- 
sible task.  Men  like  Pinner  and  Rawicz  have  tried  to  do  so  with 
single  tracts,  and  have  only  succeeded  in,  at  the  best,  giving 
translations  to  the  world  which  are  not  only  not  correct  but  also 
not  readable.  If  it  were  translated  from  the  original  text  one 
would  not  see  the  forest  through  the  trees.  For,  as  we  have  said 
above,  throughout  the  ages  there  have  been  added  to  the  text 
marginal  notes,  explanatory  words,  and  whole  phrases  and  sen- 
tences inserted  in  malice  or  ignorance,  by  its  enemies  and  its 
friends.*  As  it  stands  in  the  original  it  is,  therefore,  a  tangled 
mass  defying  reproduction  in  a  modern  tongue.  It  has  conse- 
quently occurred  to  us  that,  in  order  to  enable  the  Talmud  to 
open  its  mouth,  the  text  must  be  carefully  edited.  A  modern 
book,  constructed  on  a  supposed  scientific  plan,  we  cannot  make 
of  it,  for  that  would  not  be  the  Talmud ;  but  a  readable,  intel- 
ligible work,  it  can  be  made.  We  have,  therefore,  carefully  punc- 
tuated the  Hebrew  text  with  modern  punctuation  marks,  and 
have  recditcd  it  by  omitting  all  such  irrelevant  matter  as  inter- 

*  In  others  of  our  works  wc  have  named  some  of  these  interpolators. 


xiv  EDITOR'S    PREFACE. 

rupted  the  clear  and  orderly  arrangement  of  the  various  argu- 
ments. We  have  also  omitted  repetitions;  for  frequently  the 
same  thing  is  found  repeated  in  many  tracts;  while  in  this  trans- 
lation each  statement  is  to  be  found  only  once,  and  in  the  proper 
place  for  it.  In  this  way  there  disappear  those  unnecessary  de- 
bates within  debates,  which  only  serve  to  confuse  and  never  to 
enlighten  on  the  question  debated.  Thus  consecutiveness  has 
been  gained,  but  never  at  the  expense  of  the  Talmud,  for  in  no 
case  have  we  omitted  one  single  statement  that  was  necessary  or 
of  any  importance.  In  other  words,  we  have  merely  removed 
from  the  text  those  accretions  that  were  added  from  outside 
sources,  which  have  proven  so  fruitful  a  source  of  misunderstand- 
ing and  misrepresentation. 

We  continue  our  labors  in  the  full  and  certain  hope  that  "  he 
who  comes  to  purify  receives  divine  help,"  and  that  in  our  task 
of  removing  the  additions  made  by  the  enemies  of  the  Talmud 
we  shall  be  purifying  it  from  the  most  fruitful  source  of  the  at- 
tacks made  on  it,  and  thereunto  we  hope  for  the  help  of  Heaven. 
As  we  have  already  said,  we  feel  that  this  work  will  not  be  received 
everywhere  with  equal  favor.  We  could  not  expect  that  it  would. 
Jewish  works  of  importance  have  most  usually  been  given  amid 
"lightning  and  thunder,"  and  this  is  not  likely  to  prove  an  excep- 
tion. 

We  are  always  ready  to  accept  criticism,  so  long  as  it  is  objec- 
tive, and  we  shall  gladly  avail  ourselves  of  suggestions  given  to 
us,  but  we  shall  continue  to  disregard  all  personal  criticism  directed 
not  against  our  work  but  against  its  author.  This  may  serve  as 
a  reply  to  a  so-called  review  that  appeared  in  07ie  of  our  Western 
weeklies. 

At  the  same  time  we  deem  it  our  duty  to  render  to  Dr.  Isaac 
M.  Wise,  the  venerable  President  of  the  Hebrew  Union  College 
of  Cincinnati,  our  heartfelt  thanks  for  the  several  evenings  spent 
in  revising  this  volume,  and  for  many  courtesies  extended  to  us 
in  general. 

The  Editor. 

Cincinnati,  May,  1896. 


BRIEF    GENERAL    INTRODUCTION 

TO   THE 

BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 


On  this,  the  appearance  of  our  latest  literary  undertaking,  we 
deem  a  few  explanatory  remarks  necessary.  The  brief  outline  of 
the  origin  of  the  Talmud  that  follows  may  suggest  the  thought 
that  we  have  departed  from  the  usual  manner  of  dealing  with  the 
questions  here  discussed,  the  more  so  since  we  have,  for  the  sake 
of  brevity,  refrained  from  citing  the  authorities  on  which  our 
statements  are  based.  We  wish,  therefore,  to  declare  here  that 
we  do  not  venture  to  make  a  single  statement  without  the  sup- 
port of  authorities  well  known  in  Hebrew  literature.  Our  method 
is  to  select  such  views  as  seem  to  us  the  best  authenticated 
in  the  historical  progress  of  Judaism.  As  we  have  taken  our 
choice  from  the  numerous  works  on  our  subject,  the  student  is 
entitled  to  adopt  or  to  reject  the  views  that  we  represent. 

Most  of  the  Mishnayoth  date  from  a  very  early  period,  and 
originated  with  the  students  of  the  Jewish  academics  which  ex- 
isted since  the  days  of  Jehoshaphat,  King  of  Judah  [II  Chron. 
xvii.  9]. 

The  rabbinical  students  of  ancient  times  noted  the  essence  of 
the  academical  teachings  in  brief  form,  and,  as  a  rule,  in  the 
idiom  in  which  it  was  spoken  to  them,  so  that  they  could  after- 
ward easily  commit  it  to  memory.  They  have  sometimes,  how- 
ever, added  comments  and  extensive  explanations  in  the  form  of 
notes,  so  that  the  mass  of  their  learning,  embraced  in  course  of 
time,  according  to  some  authorities,  as  many  as  six  hundred 
divisions. 

The  source  of  the  Mishnayoth  was  the  customs  and  regula- 


xvi  BRIEF   GENERAL   INTRODUCTION. 

tions  practised  by  the  authorities  in  their  administration  of  relig- 
ious and  civil  affairs  :  such  as  the  Sabbath,  Prayers,  Cleanliness 
(considered  actually  Godliness),  Permitted  and  Forbidden  Foods, 
and  controversies  arising  concerning  Slavery.  Indebtedness  and 
corporal  punishment  are  subjects  of  academical  discussion,  con- 
ducted with  the  aim  of  perfecting  them  into  national  statutes 
enforcible  in  all  Jewish  communites  alike. 

In  course  of  time,  however,  when  those  Mishnayoth  were 
noted  down  from  earlier  existing  copies,  many  additions  were 
made.  Finally  Rabbi  Jehudah  the  Prince,  generally  called  Rabbi, 
concluded  to  collect  all  the  Mishnayoth  in  his  college  for  proper 
arrangement.  From  these  he  selected  six  divisions,  called  ac- 
cording to  the  subject  they  deal  with,  viz.:  Seeds,  Feasts,  Women, 
Damages,  Sacrifices,  and  Purifications,  and  he  proclaimed  them 
holy  for  all  Israel.  Of  the  Mishnayoth  so  treated  by  Rabbi  some 
were  left  entirely  intact,  and  were  reproduced  in  their  original 
form.  To  others  he  parenthetically  added  brief  comments  of 
his  own,  and  there  are  still  others  that  he  changed  in  form  com- 
pletely, because  already  in  his  day  old  customs  had  changed  and 
taken  new  forms. 

Such  of  them  as  he  desired  to  make  final  and  indisputable 
national  laws  he  incorporated  into  the  Mishna  without  mention- 
ing the  names  of  their  authors.  Where,  however,  he  could  for- 
mulate no  definite  decision  himself,  or  where  they  were  well  known 
to  the  public,  he  gave  full  information  of  their  authors  as  well  as 
the  names  of  those  opposed  to  their  conclusions,  without  any  de- 
cision on  his  part.  In  still  others  he  mentioned  no  names,  but  con- 
tented himself  with  saying  "  A'herim,"  i.e.,  "  Anonymous  teachers 
say,"  not  wishing  to  specify  their  authority  for  certain  reasons. 

Rabbi  did  not  seek  the  compliance  and  agreement  of  all  his 
contemporaries  in  his  arrangement  of  the  Mishna,  and  many 
differed  from  his  conclusions  and  even  arranged  Mishnayoth  in 
accordance  with  their  own  views.  Being,  however,  a  man  of 
great  prominence,  influence,  and  wealth,  Rabbi  succeeded  in 
quelling  opposition  and  in  making  his  conclusions  as  acceptable 
as  the  Mosaic  law  itself ;  and  his  great  pupils,  seeing  that  his  in- 


BRIEF   GENERAL   INTRODUCTION.  xvii 

tcnlions  were  only  to  prevent  dissensions  and  his  only  aim  the 
public  weal,  supported  him  nobly,  until  his  teachings  were  ac- 
cepted as  the  law  of  the  nation. 

Many  Mishnayoth  were  rejected  and  destroyed  by  Rabbi, 
but,  not  being  in  possession  of  all  those  he  wished  to  destroy,  he 
went  in  search  of  them  to  colleges  outside  of  his  jurisdiction. 
There,  however,  he  met  with  great  opposition  Some  of  the 
Mishnayoth  were  hidden  beyond  his  reach,  others  were  secretly 
preserved  and  arranged  within  the  very  limits  of  his  domain  and 
promptly  brought  to  light  after  his  death.  But  Rabbi's  pupils 
did  not  dignify  them  with  the  name  MiSHNA,  implying  "next  to 
Mosaic  law,"*  but  called  them  TOSEPHTOTH,  meaning  "addi- 
tions of  a  later  period,"  or  merdy  additional,  not  principal,  mat- 
ter. Some  of  them  were  also  named  BORAITHOTH  (outsiders), 
i.e.,  secondary,  not  academical  matter.  They  spread,  however, 
very  rapidly  after  Rabbi's  death,  and  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
threaten  the  Mishnayoth  of  Rabbi  with  entire  extinction.  Such 
would  actually  have  been  the  result,  had  not  the  pupils  of  Rabbi 
organized  again  colleges  whose  aim  was  to  perpetuate  the  Mish- 
nayoth of  Rabbi,  which  they  also  accomplished.  Colleges  of 
that  character  were  those  of  Rabh  and  Samuel  in  Babylon  and 
Rabbi  Janai  and  Rabbi  Jo'hanan  in  Palestine.  These  colleges 
made  strenuous  efforts  to  explain  and  harmonize  the  Mishnayoth 
of  Rabbi  with  the  teachings  of  the  Boraithoth,  generally  regarded 
as  those  of  Rabbi  Hyya  and  Rabbi  Oshia,  who  were  greatly  ad- 
mired by  the  public.  At  times  the  Mishna  of  Rabbi  was  abbre- 
viated and  replenished  with  the  text  of  the  Boraitha,  or  explained 
with  an  opposing  opinion,  so  as  to  harmonize  it  with  the  latter  or 
suit  the  new  conditions  and  consequent  changes  of  the  custom 
that  originally  caused  the  conclusion  of  the  Mishna.  Where, 
however,  they  found  no  other  way  to  suit  their  purpose,  they  in- 
serted a  new  Mishna  of  their  own  composition  into  the  text  of 
Rabbi.f 

*  See  Mlelziner's  *'  Introduction  to  the  Talmud,"  page  6. 

f  This  was  done  by  Rabh  and  R.  Jo'hanan,  the  heads  of  the  colleges  in  Babylon 
and  Palestine  ;  and  in  many  passages  of  the  Talmud  the  latter  exclaims :  "  This 


xviii  BRIEF    GENERAL   INTRODUCTION. 

The  teachers  mentioned  in  the  Mishna  of  R.abbi  or  in  the 
Boraithoth  and  Tosephta  were  called  Tanaim  {singular  Tana) 
signifying  Instructors,  Professors.  The  teachings  of  the  colleges, 
covering  a  period  of  some  centuries,  which  also  found  adherents 
and  became  the  trad'tional  law,  were  called  Gemara,  signify- 
ing "conclusion."  The  intention  was  to  harmonize  Mishna  and 
Boraitha,  and,  in  most  cases,  to  arrive  at  a  final  decision  as  to 
the  proper  interpretation  oT  the  theory  of  the  law  (as  Rabbi 
Jo'hanan  prohibited  compliance  with  the  Halakha  unless  it  is 
mandatory).  These  Gemara  teachers  were  called  Amoraim  (in- 
terpreters),  i.e.,  they  interpreted  to  the  public  the  difficult  pas- 
sages in  the  Mishna.  Being  classified  as  interpreters  only,  they 
had  no  authority  to  deviate  from  the  spirit  of  the  Mishna  unless 
supported  by  another  Tana  opposing  the  Mishna,  in  which  case 
they  could  follow  the  opinion  of  the  Tana  with  whom  they 
agreed.  Rabhina  and  R.  Ashi,  who  lived  at  the  end  of  the  fifth 
century  (third  century  of  Amoraim),  began  to  arrange  the  Ge- 
mara, but  without  success,  and  commenced  a  second  time  to  ar- 
range it.  Unfortunately  they  died  before  accomplishing  their  task, 
and  the  Gemara  had  to  undergo  the  chances  of  transmission  from 
hand  to  hand  until  the  appearance  upon  the  scene  of  Rabana 
Jose,  president  of  the  last  Saburaic  College  in  Pumbeditha,  who 
foresaw  that  his  college  was  destined  to  be  the  last,  owing  to  the 
growing  persecution  of  the  Jews  from  the  days  of  "  Firuz."  He 
also  feared  that  the  Amoraic  manuscripts  would  be  lost  in  the 
coming  dark  days  or  materiall)-  altered,  so  he  summoned  all  his 
contemporary  associates  and  hastily  closed  up  the  Talmud,  pro- 
hibiting any  further  additions  This  enforced  haste  caused  not 
only  an  improper  arrangement  and  many  numerous  repetitions 
and  additions,  but  also  led  to  the  "  talmudizing "  of  articles 
directly  traceable  to  bitter  and  relentless  opponents  of  the  Tal- 
mud. The  time  (Rabana  Jose  conducted  his  college  only  seven- 
teen years)  being  too  short  for  a  proper  and  critical  review  of 

Mishna  was  taught  in  the  time  of  Rabbi  ! "  which  means  that  Rabbi  himself  was  not 
aware  of  it.  See  Weiss*  "  Traditions  of  the  Oral  Law,"  under  the  head  "  Mishna 
and  Rabbi." 


BRIEF   GENERAL    INTRODUCTION.  lix 

each  and  everj-  subject,  many  theories  were  surreptitiously  added 
by  its  enemies,  with  the  puqjose  of  making  it  detestable  to  its 
adherents.  Of  such  character  is  the  expression,  **  That  of  R. 
Ashi  is  a  fabrication,"  which  is  repeated  numerous  times  through- 
out the  Talmud  and  which  could  by  no  means  have  originated 
with  the  Amoraim.  who  as  a  rule  were  ver\-  guarded  in  their  ex- 
pressions and  would  never  have  dreamed  of  applying  it  or  simi- 
lar expressions  to  such  Talmudical  authorities  as  R.  Ashi  and 
Mar.  his  son,  much  less  to  the  Patriarchs  or  the  Prophets,  This 
closing  up  of  the  Talmud  did  not,  however,  prevent  the  impKjrta- 
tion  of  foreign  matter  into  it.  and  many  such  have  crept  in 
through  the  agency  of  the  "  Rabanan  Saburai "  and  the  Gaonim 
of  ever}'  later  generation. 

The  chief  aim  of  the  authors  of  the  Gemara  being  to  j>erpetu- 
ate  tlie  Mishna  as  the  sole  source  of  the  Jewish  religious  and  ci\-il 
code  after  the  Mosaic  laws  themselves,  they  not  only  directed  all 
their  energy-  to  the  discussion  and  perfecting  of  its  deductions, 
but  treated  its  ver>'  words  and  letters  as  inspired  and  as  holy  as 
the  Bible  itself,  forming  at  times  conclusions  from  a  superfluous 
word  or  letter.  Oftentimes,  when  they  found  the  Mishna  differ- 
ing with  an  established  custom  in  their  days,  they  resorted  to 
subtle  inquiry-  and  minute  discussion,  until  they  succeeded  in 
establishing  harmony  between  the  differing  points.  All  these 
efforts  were  directed  to  refute  and  disprove  the  assertions  of  the 
different  sects  who  opposed  the  oral  law  and  who  were  inclined 
to  adhere  to  the  written  law  solely.  Therefore  the  Rabbis  of  the 
Gemara  said  **  ^[IN.\1_\^*  ?"  (Wherefrom  its  source  ?)  or  "  MIXOH 
H-\NXE  MiLI  ?  "  (which  means  "  Whence  is  all  this  deduced ?  ")  in 
the  treatment  of  a  subject  not  plainly  specified  in  the  Bible;  and 
also  the  exclamaton*'  remark  **Peshit.\!"  (It  is  self-e\-ident ! )  as 
regards  subjects  plainly  enumerated  in  the  Scriptures  which  do 
not  admit  of  any  other  interpretation.  Of  the  same  origin  b  the 
question  "  Lem.\I  Hilkheth.\?"  (For  what  purpose  was  this 
Halakha  stated  ?  )  with  reference  to  an  obsolete  custom.  So  much 
for  the  general  histon.-  of  the  Talmud. 


INTRODUCTION    TO  TRACT   SABBATH. 


With  this  tract  we  commence  the  translation  of  the  section 
of  the  Talmud  called  jT^/i^rd^  (Festivals),  containing  the  following 
tracts :  Sabbath,  Erubhin,  Rosh  Hashana,  Yuma,  Shekalim,  Suk- 
kah,  Megillah,  Taanith,  Pesachim,  Betzah,  Hagigah,  and  Moed 
Katan.  All  these  tracts  are  entirely  devoted  to  precepts  pertain- 
ing to  the  observance  of  the  festivals  and  Sabbath,  such  as  the 
performance  of  the  different  ritual  ceremonies  on  feast-days,  the 
manner  of  sanctifying  the  Sabbath,  and  the  ordinances  relating 
to  mourning  for  the  dead  both  on  Sabbath  and  week-days. 

The  commandments  on  which  these  precepts  are  founded,  or 
from  which  they  are  derived,  are  contained  in  various  portions 
of  the  Pentateuch.  The  fourth  commandment  of  the  Decalogue 
enacts  (Exod.  xx.  8-11  and  Deut.  v.  12-15):  "The  seventh 
day  shall  ye  keep  holy."  In  various  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch 
the  due  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  repeatedly  ordained ;  in 
some  instances  merely  mentioning  the  day  as  one  to  be  kept 
inviolate  and  holy ;  and  in  others  employing  greater  emphasis, 
referring  to  the  history  of  creation,  and  establishing  the  obser. 
vance  as  a  sign  of  the  covenant  between  the  Lord  and  Israel. 
Such  texts  are  Exod.  xiii.  12  ;  xvi.  15  ;  xxxi.  13-17  ;  xxxiv.  21  ; 
XXXV.  1-3  ;  Lev.  xix.  29;  xxiii.  32 ;  Num.  xv.  9,  etc.  While  the 
general  principle  is  thus  frequently  inculcated,  its  special  applica- 
tion,  however,  and  specific  enactments  as  to  what  constitutes  a 
violation  of  the  Sabbath,  are  nowhere  fully  carried  out  in  the 
Pentateuch,  and  thus  but  few  texts  of  the  Scriptures  serve  as  a 
direct  basis  for  the  minute  and  numerous  enactments  of  the  rab- 
binical law. 

The  Mishna  enumerates  thirty-nine  "Abhoth"  or  principal  acts 


xxii  INTRODUCTION   TO    TRACT   SABBATH. 

of  labor,  the  performance  of  any  one  of  which  constitutes  a  violation 
of  the  Sabbath.  Every  other  kind  or  work  becomes  illegal  only 
if  it  can  be  classified  under  one  or  anj  of  these  principal  acts  of 
labor.  Thus,  for  instance,  under  the  principal  act  of  ploughing, 
every  analogous  kind  of  work,  such  as  digging,  delving,  weeding, 
dunging,  etc.,  must  be  classified.  In  addition  to  these  thirty-nine 
principal  acts  and  their  accessories  and  derivatives,  there  are  other 
acts  which  are  especially  prohibited  by  the  rabbinical  law  as  tend- 
ing to  violate  the  Sabbath  rest  (Shbhuth).  For  the  violation  itself 
various  degrees  of  culpability  are  established,  and  various  degrees 
of  punishment  awarded.  All  these  subjects  relating  to  the  due 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  pointing  out  its  violation  in  every 
possible  way,  form  the  contents  of  the  treatise  SabWth. 

In  order  properly  to  understand  the  Mishna,  k  id  to  avoid 
tedious  repetitions,  it  is  necessary  to  commence  with  the  explana- 
tion of  certain  general  principles  and  technical  expressions  pre- 
dominating in  the  text. 

Wherever  throughout  the  Mishna  the  expression  guilty,  cul- 
pable (Hayabh),  or  free  (Patur)  is  used,  the  meaning  of  the  former 
(guilty)  is  that  the  transgressor  acting  unintentionally  must  bring 
the  sin-offering  prescribed  in  the  law ;  of  the  second  expression 
(free),  that  the  accused  is  absolved  from  punishment. 

If  through  the  performance  of  an  unprohibited  act  some  other 
(prohibited)  occupation  is  inadvertently  entered  upon,  it  consti- 
tutes no  offence,  providing  the  latter  is  not  done  intentionally  nor 
the  lawful  occupation  entered  upon  with  the  covert  purpose  of 
making  it  serve  as  a  subterfuge  to  do  that  which  is  prohibited. 

In  the  degrees  of  violation  the  nature  of  the  occupation  must 
be  considered,  as  various  kinds  of  labor  may  be  required  to  per- 
form and  complete  one  act,  and  thus  the  offender  may  become 
amenable  to  several  penalties.  On  the  other  hand,  the  rule  is  laid 
down  that  such  occupations  as  only  destroy,  but  do  not  serve  an 
end  in  view,  do  not  involve  culpability  (in  the  rigorous  sense 
of  the  word) ;  nor  yet  does  work  which  is  but  imperfectly  or 
incompletely  performed  involve  culpability. 

The  prohibition  to  carry  or  convey  any  object  from  one  place 


INTRODUCTION    TO   TRACT   SABBATH.  xxiit 

to  another,  which  in  Chap.  I.,  §  i ,  of  this  treatise  is  called  "  Yetziath 
(Ha)Shabbath  "(which  means  transfer  on  the  Sabbath)  and  forms 
the  thirty-ninth  of  the  principal  acts  of  labor,  requires  particular 
attention  and  explanation  from  the  complexity  of  cases  to  which 
it  gives  rise.  All  space  was  by  the  Tanaim  divided  into  four  dis- 
tinct kinds  of  premises,  explained  in  the  Gemara  of  this  chapter. 
When  in  the  text  of  the  Mishna  the  question  is  about  carr^'ing 
and  conveying  from  one  place  to  another,  it  does  not  apply  to  the 
"  free  place,"  as  that  is  subject  to  no  jurisdiction.  Moreover,  the 
open  air  above  private  property  has  no  legal  limitation,  whereas 
that  over  public  property  or  unclaimed  ground  (carmelith)  only 
belongs  thereto  to  the  height  of  ten  spans  (see  explanation  of  the 
Gemara).  The  carrying  or  conveying  from  one  kind  of  premises 
to  another  does  not  constitute  a  complete  or  perfect  act,  unless 
the  same  person  who  takes  a  thing  from  the  place  it  occupies 
deposits  it  in  another  place. 

The  tracts  Sabbath  and  Erubhin  will  contain  the  laws  for  the 
observance  of  rest  on  Sabbath,  and  these  laws  can  be  divided  into 
two  separate  parts.  Firstly,  the  part  prohibiting  labor  on  the 
Sabbath  day,  at  the  same  time  defining  what  is  to  be  termed  labor 
and  what  docs  not  constitute  an  act  of  labor ;  and  secondly,  the 
part  ordaining  how  the  day  is  to  be  sanctified  and  distinguished 
from  a  week-day  in  the  manner  of  eating,  drinking,  dress,  light- 
ing of  candles  in  honor  of  the  Sabbath,  and  incidentally  the 
lighting  of  candles  in  honor  of  the  festival  of  'Hanukah(the  Mac- 
cabees). 

It  has  been  proven  that  the  seventh  day  kept  holy  by  the  Jews 
was  also  in  ancient  times  the  general  day  of  rest  among  other 
nations,*  and  was  usually  spent  by  the  people  of  those  days  in 
much  the  same  way  as  it  is  spent  now,  wherever  local  laws  do  not 
restrict  buying  and  selling,  namely :  In  the  forenoon  prayers  were 
recited  and  the  necessities  of  life  for  the  day  were  bought,  while 

•  In  a  table  compiled  by  Rev.  A.  H.  Lewis,  Alfred  Centre,  N.  Y.,  1884,  in  his 
work  entitled  "Biblical  Teachings,  concerning  the  Sabbath  and  the  Sunday,"  it  is 
shown  that  among  nearly  all  nations  the  Sunday  is  the  first  and  the  Sabbath  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week. 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION    TO    TRACT   SABBATH. 

the  afternoon  was  devoted  to  pleasure-seeking,  merrymaking,  vis- 
iting, and  so  forth.  The  Jews  Hving  prior  to  the  time  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  and  even  during  the  latter's  regime,  were  wont  to 
spend  the  Sabbath  in  the  same  manner  as  their  pagan  neighbors. 
It  was  this  fact  that  caused  the  sages  of  Nehemiah's  time  to  fear 
that  should  the  Jews,  who  were  always  in  the  minority  as  com- 
pared with  other  nations,  continue  this  method  of  keeping  the 
Sabbath  and  join  in  the  merrymaking  and  pleasures  of  their  neigh- 
bors, mingling  freely  with  their  sons  and  daughters,  assimilation 
was  almost  inevitable,  especially  as  the  Jewish  race  was  scattered 
over  all  the  known  world  and  was  nowhere  in  very  large  numbers. 
The  sages  then  devised  means  to  keep  the  Jew  from  mingling 
with  the  Gentile  and  from  participating  in  the  pleasures  and 
carousals  of  his  neighbors.  This  can  be  seen  from  Nehemiah,  xiii. 
1-26:  "  In  those  days  saw  I  in  Judah  some  treading  wine-presses 
on  the  Sabbath,"  etc.  "  In  those  days  also  saw  I  Jews  that  had 
married  wives  of  Ashdod,  of  Ammon,  and  of  Moab,"  etc.  "  Ye 
shall  not  give  your  daughters  unto  their  sons  nor  take  their  daugh- 
ters unto  your  sons,  or  for  yourselves."  Thus  we  see  that  Nehe- 
miah began  by  prohibiting  trafific  and  the  carrying  of  burdens  on 
the  Sabbath  [ibid.  xiii.  19]  and  ended  by  prohibiting  intermar- 
riage with  foreign  women.  About  this  time  also  another  prophet, 
the  second  Isaiah — who,  though  not  possessing  the  temporal 
power  of  Nehemiah,  was  gifted  with  that  persuasive  eloquence 
that  appealed  to  the  heart — preached  against  indulging  in  pleas- 
ures on  the  Sabbath  day.  He  says  [Isaiah,  Iviii.  13-14] :  "  If  thou 
turn  away  thy  foot  from  the  Sabbath  "  (meaning  if  thou  keep 
away  from  drinking-places,  dancing-houses,  etc.,  on  the  Sabbath 
and  follow  not  the  custom  of  other  nations),  "  and  call  the  Sab- 
bath a  delight  "  (meaning  the  rest  on  the  Sabbath  shall  constitute 
thy  pleasure),  "the  holy  of  the  Lord,  honorable;  and  shalt  honor 
him,  not  doing  thine  own  ways,  nor  finding  thine  own  pleasure, 
nor  speaking  thine  own  words.  Then  shalt  thou  delight  thy- 
self in  the  Lord ;  and  I  will  cause  thee  to  ride  the  high  places  of 
the  earth,  and  feed  thee  with  the  heritage  of  Jacob  thy  father;  for 
the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it."     (The  inference  is  very 


INTRODUCTION    TO   TRACT   SABBATH.  xxv 

plain.  The  prophet  wishes  to  impress  the  Jew  with  the  fact  that 
the  Lord  will  reward  those  with  the  heritage  of  Jacob  who  have 
kept  away  from  minfjling  with  the  pleasures  of  other  nations. 
Read  ibid.  Ivii.,  especially  verses  lo.  ii,  and  12.) 

After  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  government  among 
the  Jews,  however,  it  was  found  that  the  exhortations  of  the  pro- 
phets after  the  manner  of  Isaiah  were  of  no  avail;  the  people  still 
continued  seeking  pleasures  on  the  Sabbath,  after  the  manner  of 
other  nations,  and  were  still  wont  to  enjoy  the  pastimes  of  their 
neighbors.  The  enforcement  of  the  prohibition  of  carrying  bur- 
dens was  then  decided  upon  to  act  as  a  check  upon  the  people 
by  defining  minutely  the  meaning  of  burdens,  and  the  prohibition 
was  interpreted  to  include  not  only  heavy  burdens,  but  all  port- 
able articles,  such  as  money,  trinkets,  eatables,  etc.,  while  only 
necessary  articles  of  clothing  and  apparel  were  permitted  to  be 
worn.  To  such  an  extent  was  the  matter  carried  that  even  the 
wearing  of  rings,  with  the  exception  of  such  as  had  the  name  of 
the  wearer  engraved  upon  them,  was  not  permitted.  In  fact, 
everj'thing  that  could  be  converted  into  money  was  included  in 
the  definition  of  burdens.  Beggars  were  not  permitted  to  solicit 
alms  on  the  Sabbath,  contrary  to  the  customs  of  other  nations,  so 
as  not  to  afford  any  one  an  excuse  for  carrying  money  on  that  day. 

The  enforcement  of  such  a  law,  however,  was  practically  hn- 
possible  in  the  case  of  people  who  remained  in  their  houses,  and 
certain  modifications  were  made.  These  modifications  were  as 
follows:  The  laws  were  made  to  apply  only  on  public  grounds 
but  were  not  valid  on  private  grounds,  so  that  in  a  private  house 
a  person  was  permitted  to  carry  whatever  was  necessary'.  Private 
grounds  were  also  established  by  the  institution  of  Erubhin,  i.e., 
where  a  street  or  a  public  place  was  inhabited  by  Jews  alone  a 
small  amount  of  meal  was  collected  from  each  household ;  from 
the  meal  a  cake  was  made  and  hung  conspicuously  in  that  local- 
ity. The  point  where  the  street  inhabited  by  Jews  alone  com- 
menced and  the  point  where  it  ended  were  joined  by  a  piece  of 
twine,  and  thus  definitely  marked.  Thus  public  grounds  were 
turned  into  private  grounds,  from  the  fact  that  each  household 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION    TO    TRACT    SABBATH. 

contributing  a  share  of  meal  made  them  all  in  a  manner  copart- 
ners in  one  object.  The  walking  of  more  than  two  thousand  ells 
outside  of  the  city  limits  was  also  prohibited.  Within  the  city 
limits,  be  the  city  ever  so  large,  walking  was  permitted. 

The  possibility  of  confinement  in  the  house  on  the  Sabbath 
becoming  conducive  to  the  performance  of  labor  was  offset  by 
the  establishment  of  a  law  prohibiting  all  the  different  modes  of 
labor  used  in  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle,  besides  all  man- 
ner of  agricultural  labor.  This  again  brought  about  the  detailing 
of  all  the  different  modes  of  labor  employed  in  the  construction 
of  the  tabernacle  and  in  agriculture,  all  of  which  is  discussed  in 
these  treatises  of  Sabbath  and  Erubhin. 

Naturally  the  institution  of  laws  carries  with  it  provisions  for 
the  penalties  attending  their  infraction,  and  these  penalties  were 
divided  into  three  classes: 

First,  the  penalties  for  unintentional  infractions. 

Secondly,  for  intentional  infractions. 

Thirdly,  for  intentional  violations  where  the  violator  had  been 
previously  forewarned  of  the  penalty  by  two  witnesses. 

The  penalty  for  the  first  class  of  infractions  was  simply  the 
sacrificing  of  a  sin-offering,  which,  however,  involved  a  great 
many  hardships,  as  the  culprit  had  to  bring  the  sin-offering  to  the 
temple  in  Jerusalem  in  person,  and  was  frequently  compelled  to 
travel  quite  a  distance  in  order  to  do  so,  besides  sustaining  the 
loss  of  the  value  of  the  offering. 

For  the  second  class,  if  two  witnesses  testified  before  the  tri- 
bunal that  the  culprit  had  labored  on  the  Sabbath,  and  the  culprit 
admitted  that  he  had  done  so  intentionally,  no  penalty  was  in- 
flicted by  the  tribunal,  but  the  person  was  told  that  he  would  be 
punished  by  the  heavenly  power  with  the  curse  of  Karath  (short- 
ening his  allotted  time  of  existence  on  earth).  No  penalty  was 
inflicted,  for  the  reason  that,  the  culprit  having  made  himself 
liable  to  severe  punishment  from  superhuman  sources,  it  served 
as  an  excuse  to  absolve  him  from  human  punishment.* 

*  Because  it  is  a  rule  of  rabbinical  law  that,  of  two  punishments  incurred  by  one 
act,  the  severer  one  is  meted  out  Qam  leh  bid'rabba  mineh. 


INTRODUCTION    TO    TRACT    SABBATH.  xxvii 

For  the  third  class,  however,  when  the  culprit  openly  defied 
the  existing  authority  and  in  spite  of  forewarnings  persisted  in 
violating  the  law,  he  was  considered  a  traitor  to  the  government, 
to  be  sentenced  to  death  by  stoning,  as  was  the  wood-gatherer 
[Numbers,  xv.  32]. 

It  is  upon  these  laws  that  the  discussions  in  the  treatises  Sab- 
bath and  Erubhin  are  based,  and  in  addition  the  reader  will  find 
many  ethical  laws,  legends,  and  the  enumeration  of  such  enjoy- 
ments as  are  permitted  on  the  Sabbath  day  and  the  festivals. 

In  addition  to  the  above  we  would  make  the  following  cita- 
tions from  the  text  of  the  Talmud,  as  a  necessary  feature  of  the 
introduction  : 

I.  We  find  in  the  Tract  Sabbath,  6\b  and  g6b,  the  story  of 
the  mysterious  scroll  which  Rabh  claimed  to  have  found  in  the 
house  of  his  uncle,  R.  Hyya.  This  scroll  referred  to  the  principal 
acts  of  labor  prohibited  on  the  Sabbath,  which  were  forty  less 
one,  Rabh  discovered  in  this  scroll  the  statement  of  R.  Issi  b. 
Jehudah  to  the  effect  that  although  thirty-nine  principal  acts  of 
labor  are  enumerated,  only  one  of  them  makes  a  man  actually 
culpable.  The  Gemara  then  amends  this  statement  and  declares 
that  it  should  read:  "One  of  the  thirty-nine  does  not  involve 
culpability,"  but  does  not  mention  \vhich  one  it  is.  Consequently 
it  remains  doubtful  which  act  it  is  that  does  not  involve  culpa- 
bility, and  where  a  doubt  exists  as  to  whether  an  act  is  prohibited 
or  not  no  punishment  can  be  inflicted  for  its  commission.  From 
this,  two  things  may  be  inferred :  First,  that  these  acts  of  labor 
were  prohibited  for  political  reasons,  because  the  mystery  was 
extant,  and  we  find  the  term  mystery  applied  to  political  cases 
only ;  and  second,  that  the  Gemara  declares  in  the  same  passage 
that  the  carrying  of  an  object  from  public  ground  into  private 
ground  is  not  one  of  the  doubtful  acts  and  a  penalty  is  prescribed 
in  the  event  of  its  being  committed.  Hence  the  object  was  to 
prevent  the  assimilation  explained  above. 

II.  We  find  in  Yebamoth,  gob:  "  R.  Eliezer  b.  Jacob  said: 
'I  have  heard  that  a  man  was  found  riding  a  horse  on  Sabbath  in 
the  time  of  the  Greeks,  and  being  brought  before  the  tribunal  for 


xxviii         INTRODUCTION    TO    TRACT   SABBATH. 

the  crime  was  stoned  to  death.*  This  man  was  punished,  not  be- 
cause his  crime  merited  the  penalty,  but  because  the  times  made 
it  necessary."  The  inference  is  therefore  clearly  established  that 
the  man  was  punished  for  political  reasons,  and  that  the  violation 
of  the  Sabbath  laws  did  not  involve  capital  punishment. 

III.  In  Yoma,  85^,  it  is  written :  "  R.  Jonathan  b.  Joseph 
said,  *  The  Sabbath  is  holy  unto  you,'  "  implying  that  the  Sabbath 
is  handed  over  to  you  and  not  you  to  the  Sabbath.* 

IV.  R.  Johanan  states  elsewhere  that  in  Palestine,  where  the 
Jews  were  together,  no  public  ground  existed. 

Michael  L.  Rodkinson. 

Cincinnati,  March,  1896. 

*  This  is  taken  from  Mechilta,  an  authority  older  than  the  Talmud,  and  stands  in 
no  connection  with  the  Halakha.  Furthermore,  the  mystic  scrolls  may  in  some  in- 
stances have  had  reference  to  political  necessities  of  the  day,  but  by  no  means  in  all 
cases. —  The  Reviser, 


SECTION   MOED   (FESTIVALS). 
SYNOPSIS   OF   SUBJECTS 

OF 

VOLUME  1.— TRACT  SABBATH. 


SYNOPSIS   OF   SUBJECTS. 

Several  requests  have  been  received  by  the  translator  that  an  indei 
should  be  made  to  the  volumes  of  the  Talmud,  as  is  customary  with  all 
modern  works.  It  would  be  an  utter  impossibility  to  give  a  complete  index 
of  everything  contained  in  the  Talmud.  Were  it  like  other  scientific  works, 
which  treat  each  subject  separately,  this  could  easily  be  done  ;  but  with 
the  Talmud  it  is  different.  On  one  page  many  different  subjects  may  be 
discussed,  and  again  a  single  subject  may  occupy  several  pages.  The 
Talmud,  therefore,  has  never  had  an  index,  not  even  the  portions  which 
have  been  translated. 

After  careful  examination  of  the  volumes,  page  by  page,  it  has  been  de- 
cided to  make  a  synopsis,  i.e.,  to  give  briefly  the  heads  of  the  discussions 
and  conversations  upon  each  Mishna,  indicating  the  page  where  the 
Mishna  is  to  be  found,  and  the  Gemara  of  each  one,  which  serves  as  a 
commentary.  By  this  the  reader  should  be  able  to  refer  to  what  he  desires 
to  know. 

A  synopsis  is  therefore  given  of  eveiy  Mishna  which  discusses  a  single 
subject,  with  its  accompanying  Gemara  ;  but  when  several  short  Mishnas 
cover  the  same  subject,  a  single  synopsis  is  given  of  the  whole,  including 
the  Gemara  of  each  one;  and  where  a  chapter  is  short  and  has  but  one 
subject,  a  synopsis  of  the  whole  chapter  is  made,  without  dividing  it  into 
Mishnas. 

This  is  the  best  that  can  be  done,  and  it  is  hoped  that  readers  will  find 
it  satisfactory. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Mishna  /.  Regulations  concerning  prohibited  and  permitted  acts  of 
transfer  over  the  dividing  line  of  adjoining  premises  and  the  area  of  such 
premises  ;  the  classification  of  premises  ;  in  which  premises  transfer  is  per- 
mitted ;  laws  of  transfer  of  labor,  when  committed  by  the  joint  efforts  of  two 
persons;  transfer  from  and  to  doorsteps 1-13 

Mishna  //.  Whether  work  may  be  commenced  at  the  approach  of  the 
time  for  afternoon  prayer;  what  kind  of  work  is  referred  to;  how  a  man 
should  pray  ;  what  he  must  wear  ;  when  he  may  eat  his  midday  meal  ;  the 

xxix 


XXX  SYNOPSIS   OF   SUBJECTS. 

informing  of  the  bestowal  of  gifts  ;  Sabbath  as  a  valuable  gift  of  God 
and  its  origin  ;  various  legends  of  Rabha  bar  Ma'hassia  in  the  name  of 
Rabh 13-19 

MiSHNA  ///.  Tailors  and  other  artisans  are  not  permitted  to  go  out 
with  their  tools  on  Friday  near  eventide.  Treats  also  on  whether  one  may 
read  by  lamplight  on  the  Sabbath  ;  the  laws  of  visiting  the  sick  ;  what 
prayers  may  be  offered  for  the  sick, 19-22 

MiSHNAS  IV.  TO  VI.  How  the  eighteen  famous  ordinances  were  in- 
stituted in  the  attic  of  Hananya  ben  Hyzkiyah  ben  Gorion,  and  by  whom  the 
Roll  of  Fasts  was  written.  Which  acts  of  labor  may  be  commenced  on 
Friday  eve  ;  concerning  labor  which  is  accomplished  without  assistance  of 
man  on  Sabbath  ;  laws  concerning  labor  which  is  accomplished  without 
assistance  of  man  on  Sabbath  ;  laws  concerning  work  given  to  Gentiles. 
Narrative  of  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  concerning  how  his  father's  house 
dealt  with  Gentile  clothes-washers.  On  transmission  of  letters  and  journey- 
ing on  ships  on  the  Sabbath.  Regulations  pertaining  to  the  roasting  of 
meats  and  baking  of  bread  before  the  Sabbath  ;  the  sacrifices  at  the  Temple 
on  the  Passover.     Appendix  to  p.  8, 22-30 

CHAPTER    II. 

MiSHNAS  /.  AND  //.  Permissible  and  non-permissible  oils  and  wicks  for 
lamps  on  the  Sabbath  and  'Hanukah  (feast  of  Maccabbees) ;  the  law  of  the 
'Hanukah  lights  ;  'Hanukah  and  the  miracle  ;  the  duration  of  'Hanukah  ; 
benedictions  to  be  said  on  that  festival ;  the  reward  of  those  who  keep  the 
Sabbath-light  commandment  ;  the  reward  of  those  who  esteem  scholarship. 
The  second  Mishna  treats  on  :  What  balsams  may  and  may  not  be  used 
both  for  light  and  for  the  person  on  the  Sabbath  ;  a  narrative  of  a  woman 
who  hated  her  daughter-in-law  ;  who  may  be  called  a  rich  man,   .         31-42 

MiSHNAS  ///.  TO  V.  What  wicks  made  from  parts  of  trees  may  be 
used  ;  whether  broken  vessels  may  be  used  for  fuel  on  a  biblical  feast  day ; 
what  may  be  done  with  the  residue  of  oil  left  in  a  lamp ;  practical  laws  of 
egg-shells  and  whether  chairs  may  be  dragged  on  the  floor  on  Sabbath. 
The  different  opinions  of  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Aqiba  concerning  the  defile- 
ment of  a  piece  of  cloth,  and  if  it  is  allowed  to  make  a  wick  of  it.  What 
happened  with  R.  Jehudah  in  the  Hall  of  Beth  Nitza  and  with  Abhin  of 
Ziphoris,  who  committed  certain  acts  which  were  not  allowed,  in  the 
presence  of  the  sages, 42-48 

Mishna  VI.  Whether  a  light  may  be  extinguished  on  Sabbath  either  for 
fear  of  accident  or  to  afford  rest  for  the  sick  ;  the  question  asked  R.  Tan'hum 
of  Nav  and  his  replying  sermon  ;  the  soul  being  called  the  "  Light  of  God  "  ; 
the  intended  concealment  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes  ;  the 
Shekhina  (divine  presence)  not  resting  with  a  man  except  through  his  joy  of 
having  performed  a  good  deed  ;  Rabha's  custom  when  commencing  his  lec- 
tures to  his  disciples.  R.  Gamaliel's  sermon  and  answers  to  the  disciple  who 
derided  him.  The  story  of  the  three  proselytes  rejected  by  Shamai  and 
accepted  by  Hillel.  "What  is  hateful  to  thee,  do  not  unto  thy  neighbor; 
that  is  the  law.  All  else  is  but  a  commentary."  The  six  sections  of  the 
Mishna  are  inferred  from  a  biblical  passage.   The  first  thing  asked  of  a  man 


SYNOPSIS   OF   SUBJECTS.  xxxi 

when  standing  before  the  divine  judgment  is,  "Hast  tliou   traded   in  good 
faith  ?"      The  "  Fear  of  tlie  Lord  "  is  the  chief  principle.      The  wicked  fear 

death,  although  n\entioning  it  every  day. 48-53 

MiSHNAS  VII.  AND  VIII.  The  sins  of  women  are  passed  upon  when 
confined  in  clnldbirth,  the  sins  of  men  while  in  danger.  A  good  deed  is 
committed  through  the  agency  of  a  meritorious  person  and  a  bad  deed 
through  the  agency  of  the  wicked  ;  all  who  are  about  to  die  must  repent  of 
their  sins  ;  the  defenders  of  man  before  divine  judgment  are  repentance  and 
good  deeds.  A  thousandth  part  of  one  defender  saves  a  man  from  the 
danger  threatened  him  by  a  thousand  accusers.  The  penalties  imposed 
upon  man  for  hating  without  cause  ;  for  robbery  ;  for  perverting  or  pro- 
crastinating justice  ;  for  destroying  the  law  ;  for  murder  ;  for  adultery  ;  for 
idolatry;  for  using  obscene  language.  The  story  of  R.  Simeon  ben  Johai, 
who  remained  in  a  cave  for  twelve  years.  The  causes  leading  up  to  his 
concealment  in  the  cave  ;  his  adventures  after  leaving  the  cave.  The  three 
things  to  be  said  by  a  man  in  his  house  on  Friday  eve  ;  how  they  are  to  be 
said  ;  when  twilight  takes  place  ;  how  many  signals  of  the  horn  were  blown 
to  remind  the  people  of  the  advent  of  the  Sabbath.  Is  there  a  ditTerence 
between  a  shophar  and  a  fife  ?, 53-^2 

CHAPTER    III. 

MiSHNAS  /.  AND  //.  In  which  hearths  or  ovens  victuals  may  be  depos- 
ited on  the  Sabbath.  The  opinions  of  the  school  of  Hillel  and  the  school  of 
Shamai  concerning  the  same  ;  the  different  opinions  upon  the  teaching  of 
the  two  schools.  Victuals  having  once  been  taken  out  of  an  oven,  would  it 
be  allowed  to  replace  them  ?  The  law  concerning  a  pot  of  victuals  which 
had  been  forgotten  and  was  thus  cooked  on  the  Sabbath.  Usages  of  R.  Jose 
on  his  way  to  Zipporah,  and  of  R.  Jehudah  Hanassi  when  travelling.  A 
narrative  of  R.  Ishai  while  in  the  presence  of  R.  Hyya  the  Great.  The  differ- 
ence in  law  between  an  oven  and  a  hearth ;  also,  difference  arising  from 
an  oven  or  a  hearth  being  heated  with  straw  or  with  wood,  etc.,    .        63-67 

MiSHNAS  ///.  TO  VII.  Customs  of  the  people  of  Tiberias  relative  to  the 
heating  of  a  pitcher  of  cold  water.  Is  it  allowed  to  place  a  pitcher  of  cold 
water  into  one  filled  with  hot  water  in  order  to  heat  the  water  ;  or,  vice 
versa,  in  order  to  heat  the  water  "i  May  one  wash  his  body  in  the  warm 
water  of  the  Tiberius  springs  or  in  water  warmed  on  the  Sabbath  eve  ? 
May  the  entire  body  be  washed  at  once  or  each  member  separately  ?  Cus- 
toms in  a  bath-house.  Are  sweat-baths  permitted  on  the  Sabbath  ? 
Incidents  occurring  in  the  bath-house  of  the  city  of  B'ni  Brak.  Why 
sweat-baths  were  prohibited.  May  one  warm  himself  by  a  hearth-fire  ? 
Is  bathing  one's  self  in  a  washtub  and  anointing  one's  self  with  oils  per- 
mitted on  the  Sabbath  ?  Usages  of  Rabbi  Jehudah  Hanassi  in  this  matter. 
Is  swimming  in  a  lake  permitted  on  the  Sabbath  ?  Incidents  attending  R. 
Zera's  witnessing  R.  Abuhu's  swimming  in  a  lake  on  a  Sabbath.  Concerning 
the  permissibility  of  pouring  cold  water  in  a  muliar  or  antikhi,  the  fuel  of 
which  had  been  removed  ;  Br  in  a  kettle,  the  hot  water  of  which  had  been 
poured  out,  and  the  prescribed  quantity  of  such  water.  Concerning  the 
addition  of  spi<;es  to  a  pot  of  victuals.  Concerning  the  permissibility  of 
olacing  a  vessel  under  a  burning  lamp  to  receive  its  dripping  oil  or  falling 


Axxii  SYNOPSIS   OF   SUBJECTS. 

sparks,  and  the  placing  of  a  vessel  under  a  hen  to  receive  the  egg.  Ordi- 
nance relating  to  a  corpse  lying  in  the  sun.  If  it  is  allowed  to  save  a 
corpse  from  fire.  Prayers  to  be  offered  on  Sabbath  over  the  dead.  The 
accordance   of    permission    to   save   a   corpse   from   conflagration    on    the 

Sabbath,  67-74 

MiSHNAS  VIII.  AND  IX.  Concerning  the  handling  of  new  and  old  lamps 
on  the  Sabbath.  Ordinances  relative  to  a  bed  which  had  been  designated  for 
the  purpose  of  holding  money  on  the  Sabbath.  The  permissibility  of  handling 
a  burning  'Hanukah  lamp  for  fear  of  the  Persians.  The  law  of  Muktza. 
The  ordinance  relative  to  handling  a  lamp  on  Sabbath  and  the  dictum  ot 
Resh  Lakish  in  Zidon.  The  ordinance  concerning  the  nuptial  couch.  Action 
of  R.  Malkia  while  the  guest  of  R.  Simlai  and  R.  Abuhu  at  the  house  of 
R.  Joshua  ben  Levi  and  R.  Johanan.  The  experience  of  R.  Avia,  who  came 
to  the  house  of  Rabha  and  sat  on  Rabha's  bed  without  removing  his  dirty 
shoes.  Questions  put  to  him  by  Rabha,  and  his  replies.  The  law  of  a  prin- 
cipal prohibited  act.  What  R.  Hanina  did  with  a  folding-bed  that  had 
become  unfastened  on  a  feast  day, 74-82 

CHAPTER   IV. 

MiSHNAS  /.  TO  IV.  What  substances  may  be  used  for  the  preserving  of 
victuals.  Rabba's  and  R.  Zera's  upbraiding  of  a  slave  of  the  Exilarch,  while 
sojourning  in  the  latter's  house.  Concerning  the  replacing  of  feathers  in  a 
pillow.  Concerning  the  opening  of  a  bunghead  in  a  barrel  and  the  making 
of  a  neckband  in  a  shirt.  Concerning  the  permissibility  of  depositing  vict- 
uals in  cloth  and  shorn  wool  intended  for  market.  The  derivation  of  the 
thirty-nine  principal  acts  of  labor  on  the  Sabbath  from  the  thirty-nine  times 
"  work"  is  mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  law  concerning  branches  of 
trees  which  were  bound  together  to  be  used  for  fuel  and  were  subsequently 
intended  for  sitting  upon.  R.  Hanina  ben  Aqiba's  action  in  such  a  case. 
The  ordinance  relating  to  the  use  of  soap-powder  and  soap  on  the  Sabbath. 
The  necessity  of  washing  one's  hands  and  feet  for  the  sake  of  the  Creator. 
What  is  to  be  done  with  a  pot  that  had  not  been  covered  on  the  eve  of 
Sabbath  ?  The  decision  of  Ishmael  in  the  matter  in  the  presence  of  Rabbi. 
The  mutual  respect  of  the  sages  for  one  another.  R.  Na'hman's  statement 
to  Doen  his  servant, 83-90 

CHAPTER  V. 

MiSHNAS  /.  TO  ///.  What  gear  animals  may  go  out  in  on  the  Sabbath. 
Levi  the  son  of  R.  Huna  bar  Hyya  and  Rabbi  the  son  of  R.  Huna,  occur- 
rence on  the  road.  A  bridle  may  be  worn  by  an  ass  whose  behavior  is  bad. 
A  bridle  is  allowed  as  a  guard  but  not  as  an  ornament.  An  ass  may  go  out 
with  a  rug,  but  what  is  the  law  concerning  a  saddle?  Ordinances  relative 
to  a  feed-bag.  The  decision  of  Arioch  of  Babylon  (Samuel)  in  the  matter. 
Concerning  bags  tied  around  the  udders  of  she-goats.  The  miracle  that  was 
wrought  for  a  man  whose  wife  died  and  left  him  a  nursing  child.  The  discus- 
sion of  the  rabbis  about  such  a  miracle.  Narrative  relating  to  a  man  whose 
wife  was  maimed.  Concerning  gear  which  may  not  be  worn  by  animals 
on  Sabbath.     Peculiarities  of  the  Hanun  tree  and  where  it  may  be  found. 


SYNOPSIS    01'    SUBJECTS.  xxxiii 

The  wealth  of  R.  Eliezer  ben  Azariah.  Penalty  for  the  failure  to  warn  one's 
family  against  evil.  The  different  signs  on  the  forelieads  of  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked.  The  seal  of  God.  Derivation  of  the  merits  of  the  fathers. 
Is  death  possible  without  sin  ?  Defence  for  Reuben  and  others  who  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible  as  sinners.  Rabbi  Hanassi's  justification  for  David. 
Was  David  guilty  of  listening  to  slander?  Consequences  of  David's  sin. 
King  Solomon's  sin.  The  Archangel  Gabriel's  act  at  the  time  of  King 
Solomon's  marriage  with  Pharaoh's  daughter.     The  most  fervent  penitents, 

91-106 

CHAPTER    VI. 

MiSHNAS  /.  TO  ///,  What  garments  a  woman  may  go  out  in.  Definition 
of  totaphoth.  Concerning  the  garb  of  slaves.  May  the  rabbis  wear  their 
insignia  of  office  on  Sabbath?  Effect  of  a  sermon  on  the  women  of  the  city 
of  Mehuza  concerning  ornaments  in  the  shape  of  a  crown.  Ordinances  con- 
cerning nose-bands,  earrings,  and  finger-rings.  What  garments  a  man 
must  not  go  out  in.  Consequences  of  wearing  iron-bound  sandals.  The 
law  of  majority.  How  shoes  are  to  be  put  on.  Why  one  when  anointing 
himself  should  first  anoint  the  head.  Law  concerning  amulets,  both  tried 
and  untried.  Ordinances  concerning  hairpins  and  perfume-bottles.  Causes 
of  poverty.     The  trees  of  Jerusalem, 107-117 

MiSHNAS  IV.  TO  IX.  Concerning  bows,  swords,  and  shields.  Are  they 
considered  ornaments  or  is  the  wearing  of  such  things  degrading?  Inter- 
pretation of  biblical  passages.  Are  they  to  be  taken  literally  or  figuratively. 
Rewards  emanating  from  the  proper  study  of  the  Law.  Customs  of  scholars 
when  discussing  the  Law.  God's  blessing  upon  scholars  who  mutually  in- 
struct one  another.  Regarding  a  man  who  keeps  a  vicious  dog  about  his 
premises.  Why  the  children  of  Israel  were  in  need  of  forgiveness  upon 
their  return  from  the  war  with  the  Midianites.  What  garments  women, 
young  girls,  and  boys  may  go  out  in  on  Sabbath.  References  to  cripples 
and  to  children  of  princes.  Concerning  the  danger  of  imitating  the  customs 
of  the  Amorites.     Occurrence  at  the  feast  given  by  R.  Aqiba,   .         117-126 

CHAPTER   Vn. 

MiSHNAS  /.  TO  ///.  The  principal  rule  concerning  the  Sabbath.  Regu- 
lations regarding  children  in  captivity  among  idolaters  and  converts.  Re- 
maining with  idolaters.  Rules  concerning  one  who  was  ignorant  as  to  what 
labor  was  prohibited  on  the  Sabbath  but  was  conscious  of  the  Sabbath,  and 
vice  versa.  Concerning  a  man  who,  while  travelling  in  a  desert,  had  for- 
gotten which  day  was  Sabbath.  How  labor  may  be  distinguished.  Different 
instances  of  forgetfulness  regarding  Sabbath  and  the  performance  of  labor 
on  the  Sabbath.  Instances  of  forgetfulness  in  dietary  matters.  Instances 
of  intentional  and  unintentional  performance  of  labor,  and  their  distinction. 
Enumeration  of  the  forty,  less  one,  acts  of  labor.  Principal  and  incidental 
acts.  The  degree  of  guilt  involved  in  learning  magic  arts.  Condemnation 
of  one  who  is  able  to  acquire  astronomical  knowledge  and  neglects  to  do  so. 
Another  rule  was  laid  down.  Discussions  concerning  the  carrying  out  of 
necessary  things  on  the  Sabbath  and  the  limitation  of  quantity.  Different 
kinds  of  food  may  be  counted  together,         .....         127-143 


xxxiv  SYNOPSIS   OF   SUBJECTS. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

MiSHNAS  /.  TO  V.  The  prescribed  quantities  of  wine,  honey,  and  milk 
that  may  be  carried  out  on  Sabbath.  The  strength  of  different  wines.  In- 
stances of  stronger  creatures  fearing  weaker  ones.  Why  goats  precede 
sheep  in  a  flock.  Why  are  she-goats  not  covered  with  a  tail  like  sheep? 
Why  has  a  camel  a  short  tail?  Why  has  an  ox  a  long  tail?  Why  are  the 
feelers  of  a  locust  soft?  What  is  the  reason  that  the  lower  eyelids  of  a  hen 
turn  up?  Three  creatures  grow  stronger,  etc.  The  quantity  of  rope,  paper 
from  which  writing  has  been  erased,  skins,  parchment,  bones,  loam,  etc., 
which  may  be  carried  out  on  the  Sabbath.  Honor  of  man  supersedes  a 
biblical  commandment.  What  is  magic?  The  explanation  of  the  verse 
Isaiah,  xxxv.  14, 143-153 

CHAPTER   IX. 

MiSHNAS  /.  TO  V/I.  Sayings  and  deductions  of  R.  Aqiba.  The  day  of 
the  week  and  the  month  on  which  the  Law  was  given  to  Israel.  Assump- 
tion of  authority  by  Moses  and  God's  acquiescence.  The  name  of  the  month 
on  which  the  Israelites  left  Egypt,  and  was  it  an  intercalary  month  ?  The 
compulsory  acceptance  of  the  law  by  the  Israelites  and  their  subsequent 
voluntary  acceptance  in  the  days  of  Xerxes  of  Persia.  Israel's  readiness  to 
obey  even  before  hearing.  The  publication  of  every  word  spoken  by  God 
in  seventy  languages.  Comparison  of  the  sayings  of  the  Torah  with  a 
nobleman.  The  understanding  of  the  Law  is  healthful,  its  misinterpretation 
is  poisonous.  Every  word  leaving  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  filled  the  world 
with  aromatic  odors.  Complaints  of  the  angels  upon  the  ascension  of  Moses 
to  heaven.  Moses'  answer.  Satan's  search  for  the  Torah.  Concerning  the 
bearing  of  a  slave  toward  his  master.  Rabha's  lecture  upon  the  patriarchs 
and  their  answers  to  the  complaints  of  God  concerning  the  children  of  Israel 
Isaac's  defence  of  the  children  of  Israel  upon  the  Lord's  telling  him  that 
they  had  sinned.  The  quantity  of  spices,  dyes,  metals,  pedler's  boxes,  and 
seeds  which  may  be  carried  out  on  the  Sabbath,  .        .        .        154-170 

CHAPTER   X. 

MiSHNAS  /  TO  V7//.  Rules  pertaining  to  one  who  carries  out  things 
valuable  to  him.  The  quantities  in  which  they  may  be  carried  out.  The 
quantities  in  which  they  may  be  carried  out  by  one  to  whom  they  are  not 
valuable.  Concerning  eatables  which  are  carried  out  of  the  house  and  left 
on  the  doorstep,  and  things  that  are  carried  in  the  left  hand,  on  the  shoulder, 
on  the  head,  or  in  the  bosom.  Concerning  one  who,  while  intending  to  carry 
a  thing  in  front,  accidentally  carries  it  on  his  back,  or  vice  versa.  Concern- 
ing the  case  of  two  men  carrying  out  a  burden  which  one  alone  was  not 
capable  of  carrying.  The  law  in  that  case.  Concerning  the  case  of  one 
who  carries  out  eatables  in  quantities  less  than  the  limit  in  a  vessel.  Is  he 
culpable  for  carrying  the  vessel  or  not  ?  Concerning  the  permissibility  of 
paring  the  finger-nails  of  one  hand  by  means  of  those  of  the  other  hand  on 
the  Sabbath.  Tiie  case  of  one  tearing  off  flowers  from  a  plant  in  an  unper- 
iorated  flo<ver-pot,         .........         171  -182 


TRACT  SABBATH. 


CHAPTER   I. 

REGULATIONS    REGARDING    TRANSFER    ON    SABBATH. 

MISHNAI.  :  There  arc  two  acts  constituting  transfer*  of 
movable  things  (over  the  dividing  line  of  adjoining  premises, 
based  on  biblical  statutes).  The  two  acts  are,  however,  in- 
creased to  four  on  the  inside  and  to  a  like  amount  on  the  out- 
side of  the  premises  (by  the  addition  of  rabbinical  statutes). 
How  so  ?  A  mendicant  stands  outside  and  the  master  of  a 
house  inside.  The  mendicant  passes  his  hand  into  the  house 
(through  a  window  or  door)  and  puts  something  into  the  hand 
of  the  master,  or  he  takes  something  out  of  the  master's  hand 
and  draws  it  back  (toward  him).  In  such  a  case  the  mendicant 
is  guilty  (of  transfer)  and  the  master  of  the  house  is  free.  If 
the  master  of  the  house  passes  his  hand  outside  and  puts  a 
thing  into  the  hand  of  the  mendicant,  or  takes  something  out  of 
the  mendicant's  hand  and  brings  it  into  the  house,  the  master 
of  the  house  is  culpable  and  the  mendicant  is  free.f  If  the 
mendicant  extends  his  hand  into  the  house  and  the  master  takes 
something  out  of  it,  or  puts  something  into  it  which  is  drawn 
to  the  outside  by  the  mendicant,  they  are  both  free.  If  the 
master  of  the  house  extends  his  hand  outside  and  the  mendi- 
cant takes  something  out  of  it,  or  puts  something  into  it  which 
is  drawn  to  the  inside  by  the  master,  they  are  both  free. 

GEMARA:  We  were  taught  (Shebuoth,  IV.  2):  "  The  acts 

*  See  Jer.  xvii.  21,  28,  and  Neh.  xiii.  19.  This  Mishna  treats  of  the  prohibition, 
so  strongly  inculcated  by  the  prophets,  of  transferring  things  over  the  line  of  division 
between  various  grounds  or  premises. 

f  The  difference  between  the  violation  of  the  biblical  statutes  and  that  of  the 
rabbinical  statutes  is  marked  by  the  prescription  of  the  penalties  of  sin-offerings, 
shortening  of  life  and  capital  punishment  for  the  first-named  violation,  while  no  penal- 
ties arc  attached  to  a  violation  of  the  last-named  statutes.     (Sec  Introduction.) 


2  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

of  transfer  on  the  Sabbath  are  two,  respectively  four."  Why 
is  this  teaching  here  specified  as  two  respectively  four  on  the 
inside,  and  two  respectively  four  on  the  outside,  and  there  no 
such  specification  was  made?  Said  R,  Papa:  Here  the  special 
subject  of  treatment  is  the  Sabbath,  and  the  Mishna  enumer- 
ated the  cases  which  involve  guilt  and  those  which  do  not  in- 
volve guilt;  while  there  the  principal  subject  of  treatment  is 
a  different  one,  and  he  mentions  only  the  cases  that  involve 
guilt,  leaving  the  cases  that  do  not  involve  guilt  untouched. 
But  the  cases  that  involve  guilt  are  those  by  which  acts  of  trans- 
fer are  committed,  and  such  are  only  two  ?  Nay,  there  are  two 
acts  of  transfer  from  within  and  two  from  without.  But  the 
Mishna  says,  "  Yetziath  "  (which  in  a  literal  sense  means  trans- 
fer from  within)  ?  Said  R.  Ashi :  The  Tana  calls  transfer  from 
without  by  the  same  term.  And  for  what  reason  ?  Because 
every  act  of  removing  a  thing  from  its  place  is  called  Yetziah. 
Said  Rabbina:  The  Mishna  also  bears  out  this  sense;  for  it 
speaks  of  Yetziath  and  immediately  illustrates  its  remark  by 
citing  a  case  from  without.  This  bears  it  out.  Rabha,  how- 
ever, says:  He  (the  Tana)  speaks  about  divided  premises  (whose 
line  of  division  is  crossed),  and  in  this  case  there  are  only  two 
(in  each  of  which  there  may  be  four  acts  of  transfer). 

Said  R.  Mathna  to  Abayi :  Are  there  not  eight,  even  twelve 
(instances  of  transfer  over  the  line  of  division)  ?  *  And  he  re- 
joined :  Such  transfers  as  involve  the  obligation  of  a  sin-offering 
are  counted ;  but  those  that  do  not  involve  such  an  obligation 
are  not  counted. 

"  They  are  both  free.'*  Was  not  the  act  (of  transfer)  com- 
mitted by  both  ?  Said  R.  Hyya  bar  Gamda :  The  act  of  remov- 
ing the  thing  was  committed  by  the  joint  efforts  of  both,  and 
they  (the  rabbis)  said:  "It  is  written  in  the  law,  when  a  person 
did  it  "  f — i.e.,  when  one  person  commits  the  act  he  is  culpable; 
but  when  an  act  is  committed  by  the  joint  efforts  of  two  per- 
sons, they  are  both  free. 

Rabh  questioned  Rabbi :  If  one  were  laden  by  his  friend 
with  eatables  and  beverages  and  carried  them  outside  (of  the 
house),  how  is  the  law  ?  Is  the  removing  of  his  body  tanta- 
mount to  the  removing  of  a  thing  from  its  place,  and  therefore 
he  is  culpable,  or  is  it  not  so  ? 

•  Rashi  explains  at  length  how  eight  or  even  twelve  instances  of  transfer  could 
occur,  but,  not  being  essential  to  the  subject,  we  o.nit  the  explanation. 
\  Lev.  iv.  27. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  3 

Said  Rabbi  to  him :  He  is  culpable.  And  this  case  is  not 
like  the  case  of  removing  his  hand.  Why  so  ?  Because  (in  the 
latter  case)  the  hand  was  not  at  rest,  while  (in  the  former^  the 
body  (before  and  after  removal)  was  entirely  at  rest.* 

Said  Rabbi  H)ya  to  Rabh :  Descendant  of  nobles !  Did  I 
not  tell  thee  that  when  Rabbi  is  engaged  with  a  certain  tract 
ask  him  not  about  a  subject  (that  is  treated)  in  another  tract, 
for  he  may  not  have  that  subject  in  his  mind !  And  if  Rabbi 
were  not  a  great  man  thou  mightest  cause  him  shame,  for  he 
would  give  thee  an  answer  which  might  not  be  right.  In  this 
instance,  however,  he  gave  thee  a  correct  answer;  as  we  have 
learned  in  the  following  Boraitha:  If  one  was  laden  with  eat- 
ables and  beverages  while  it  was  yet  light  on  the  eve  of  Sab- 
bath, and  he  carried  them  outside  after  dark,  he  is  culpable;  for 
his  case  is  not  like  that  of  removing  the  hand  mentioned  above. 

Abayi  said :  From  all  that  was  said  above  it  is  certain  to  me 
that  the  hand  of  a  man  (standing  on  the  street)  is  not  treated  as 
public  ground. t  And  I  also  see  that  (if  a  man  stands  on  private 
ground)  his  hand  is  not  to  be  treated  as  private  ground.  Would 
it  be  correct,  then,  to  regard  the  hand  as  unclaimed  ground  ?  If 
so,  would  the  penalty  imposed  by  the  rabbis  in  such  a  case, 
namely,  that  one  should  not  move  his  hand  (containing  a  mov- 
able thing)  back  (during  the  Sabbath  day),  apply  in  this  case  or 
not  ? 

Come  and  hear  the  following  Boraitha:  If  a  man  has  his 
hand  filled  with  fruit  and  he  extends  it  outside  (of  the  premises 
where  he  stands),  one  said  he  is  not  permitted  to  draw  it  back, 
and  another  Boraitha  says  he  is  allowed  to  do  so.  May  we  not 
assume  that  this  is  their  point  of  dispute:  the  former  holds  that 
the  hand  is  treated  as  unclaimed  ground,  and  the  latter  thinks 
that  it  is  not  like  unclaimed  ground?  Nay,  it  may  be  that  both 
agree  that  the  hand  (as  spoken  of  in  our  Mishna)  is  like  un- 
claimed ground,  and  yet  it  presents  no  diflficulty.  One  of  the 
Boraithas  treats  of  a  man  who  had  extended  his  hand  uninten- 
tionally, and  the  other  one  treats  of  a  man  who  had  put  forth 
his  hand  intentionally.     In  the  former  case  the  rabbis  did  not 

*  Students  of  the  Talmud  will  remember  that  while  in  the  act  of  walking  a  man 
cannot  be  guilty  of  the  transgression  of  carrying  movable  property.  The  body  must 
be  at  rest.  The  removal  of  a  thing  by  means  of  the  hand  implies  a  disturbance  in 
the  rest  of  the  body. 

f  As  illustrated  in  our  Mishna  ;  for  if  he  did  not  deposit  the  thing  that  he  had 
passed  from  the  street  into  the  house,  he  was  not  culpable. 


4  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

fine  him,  and  in  the  latter  case  they  did.  And  if  you  wish,  it  may 
be  said  that  they  both  speak  of  a  case  when  the  act  was  done 
unintentionally,  and  their  point  of  differing  is  as  to  the  varying 
premises,  whether  the  hand  may  be  drawn  back  to  the  ground 
where  the  man  stands,  or  to  other  (private)  ground  that  adjoins 
it  ?  As  Rabha  questioned  R.  Na'hman:  If  the  hand  of  a  man 
was  filled  with  fruit,  and  he  extended  it  outside,  may  he  draw 
it  back  to  the  same  ground  where  he  stands  ?  And  he  answered  : 
He  may.  (And  may  he  remove  his  hand)  to  other  (private) 
ground  ?  Nay.  And  to  the  question,  "  What  is  the  distinc- 
tion ?  "  he  said:  If  thou  wilt  measure  a  whole  kur  of  salt  and 
present  me  with  it,  I  shall  tell  thee  the  answer.  (See  footnote, 
Erubin,  p.  79.)  In  the  former  case  his  design  was  not  accom- 
plished ;  in  the  latter,  however,  his  design  was  accomplished  (and 
it  is  prohibited  for  fear  that  it  should  be  repeated). 

R.  Bibi  bar  Abayi  questioned :  If  one  has  put  bread  into  the 
oven,  is  he  allowed  to  take  it  out  before  (it  is  baked  and)  he 
becomes  liable  to  bring  a  sin-ofTering,  or  not  ? 

Said  R.  A'ha  bar  Abayi  to  Rabhina :  What  does  the  ques- 
tioner mean  ?  Unintentionally  and  without  remembering  (that 
it  is  Sabbath),  then  what  does  the  expression  "  allowed  "  mean  ? 
To  whom  ?  He  is  still  not  aware  of  it.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
he  did  it  unintentionally  and  afterward  he  remembered  of  the 
Sabbath,  how  can  he  be  liable  to  a  sin-offering ;  did  not  a  Mishna 
state  that  the  liability  to  bring  such  a  sacrifice  applies  onl}'  when 
the  failing  was  begun  and  accomplished  unintentionally  ?  Should 
it  be  understood  that  the  act  was  done  intentionally,  then  it 
would  not  involve  the  liability  of  a  sin-offering,  but  it  would 
constitute  a  crime  that  involved  capital  punishment.* 

Said  R.  Ashi :  Say,  then,  it  is  a  crime  that  involves  capital 
punishment.  R.  A'ha,  the  son  of  Rabha,  taught  so  plainly. 
R.  Bibi  bar  Abayi  said:  If  one  put  bread  into  the  oven,  he  is 
allowed  to  take  it  out  before  it  may  involve  a  case  of  capital 
punishment. 

"  The  mendicant  extended  his  haftd,"  etc.  Why  is  he  culpa- 
ble ?  (To  complete  the  act)  there  must  be  a  transfer  from  a 
place  that  is  four  ells  square  and  a  depositing  into  a  place  of  the 
same  area,  and  such  was  not  the  case  here.     Said  Rabba :  Our 

*  All  the  labors  that  were  performed  at  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle  in  the 
desert,  as  is  taught  in  a  Mishna  farther  on,  if  done  on  the  Sabbath  intentionally,  in- 
volved capital  punishment.  The  intention  becomes  apparent  when  there  are  wit- 
nesses to  warn  the  perpetrator  of  his  wrong  and  he  does  not  heed  them. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  5 

Mishna  is  in  accordance  with  R.  Aqiba's  opinion,  who  holds 
that  as  soon  as  the  air  of  a  place  surrounds  a  thing  it  is  equal  to 
the  thing  being  deposited  in  that  place.  But  may  it  not  be  that 
depositing  does  not  require  four  ells,  for  the  reason  stated  above, 
but  removing  does  ?  Said  R.  Joseph :  The  teaching  of  this 
paragraph  agrees  (not  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Aqiba),  but  with 
that  of  Rabbi,  as  we  have  learned  in  the  following  Boraitha : 

If  one  threw  an  object  from  one  street  into  the  other,  and 
there  was  a  private  ground  between  them,  Rabbi  declared  him 
culpable,  and  the  sages  freed  him.  Hereupon  R.  Jchudah  in 
the  name  of  Samuel  said:  Rabbi  declared  the  man  guilty  of  two 
offences :  one  for  having  removed  the  thing  from  its  place,  and 
one  for  having  deposited  it  in  another  place.  Hence  in  both, 
the  four  ells  in  question  are  not  required. 

But  with  reference  to  this  it  was  taught  that  both  Rabh  and 
Samuel  said  that  Rabbi's  declaration  of  culpability  treated  of 
a  case  where  the  private  ground  (that  divided  the  two  streets) 
was  roofed,  for  the  assumption  is  that  a  house  must  be  regarded 
as  a  solid  object  that  fills  out  all  the  space  it  occupies,  but  not 
when  it  was  unroofed  ? 

Therefore  said  Rabha:  (All  these  views  can  be  dispensed 
with,  as)  the  hand  of  a  man  (because  of  its  value)  is  consid- 
ered as  a  piece  of  ground  four  ells  square.  And  so,  also,  was 
declared  by  Rabin,  when  he  came  from  Palestine,  in  the  name 
of  R.  Johanan. 

R.  Abhin  in  the  name  of  R.  Ila'a,  quoting  R.  Johanan,  said: 
If  one  threw  a  thing  and  it  rested  in  the  hands  of  another  man, 
he  is  culpable. 

Why  the  repetition — has  not  R.  Johanan  declared  above, 
already,  that  the  hana  of  a  man  is  considered  as  a  space  of  four 
ells  square  ?  Lest  one  say  that  this  is  only  when  he  intended  to 
put  it  into  his  hand  (and  the  intention  makes  it  valuable  as  the 
space  in  question),  but  not  otherwise.     Therefore  the  repetition. 

The  same  said  again  m  the  name  of  the  same  authority:  If 
one  remains  standing  in  his  place  when  he  receives  a  thing,  he 
is  culpable;  but  if  he  was  moving  away  from  his  place  when  he 
received  it,  he  is  free.  And  so  also  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha 
in  the  name  of  the  anonymous  teachers. 

R.  Johanan  asked  the  following  question:  If  one  threw  a 
thing  and  then  moved  from  his  place  and  caught  it,  is  he  cul- 
pable or  not  ?  How  is  this  question  to  be  understood  ?  Said 
R.  Ada  bar  Ah'bah:  The  difficulty  is  concerning  the  exercise 


6  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

of  two  forces  by  one  man,  and  the  question  was  thus:  If  two 
forces  were  exercised  by  one  man  (in  committing  a  prohibited 
act),  should  both  parts  of  the  act  be  accounted  to  the  same,  so 
that  he  should  be  declared  culpable,  or  should  each  part  of  the 
act  be  considered  separately,  as  if  there  were  two  individuals 
concerned,  and  then  he  is  free  ?     This  question  is  not  decided. 

R.  Abhin  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  said:  If  one  put  his 
hand  into  the  yard  of  his  neighbor,  got  it  full  of  rain  water,  and 
withdrew  it,  he  is  guilty.  But  to  make  one  guilty  of  the  act,  it 
must  consist  of  removing  a  thing  from  a  place  of  four  ells  square, 
which  is  not  the  case  here.  Said  R.  Hyya  b.  R.  Huna:  It 
means  that  he  took  the  water  as  it  was  running  down  a  slanting 
wall,  as  Rabba  taught  elsewhere  that  removing  a  thing  from  a 
slanting  wall  made  the  man  culpable.  But  (in  speaking  of  re- 
moving an  object  from  a  slanting  wall)  Rabba  treated  on  the 
question  of  removing  a  book,  which  is  a  stationary  thing.  Is  it 
analogous  to  removing  water  that  can  never  become  stationary  ? 

Therefore  said  Rabha:  Our  case  treats  when  he  dipped  the 
water  out  of  a  cavity  (in  the  wall)  in  question.  Is  not  this  self- 
evident  ? 

Lest  one  say  that  water  standing  upon  water  is  not  consid- 
ered stationary,  he  comes  to  teach  us  that  it  is.  And  this  is  in 
accordance  with  his  theory,  as  follows:  Water  standing  upon 
water  is  considered  stationary;  a  nut,  however,  lying  upon  the 
surface  of  water  is  not  considered  so. 

The  same  said  again,  in  the  name  of  the  same  authorities: 
One  who  was  laden  with  eatables  and  beverages,  entering  and 
going  out  the  whole  day,  he  is  not  culpable  until  he  rests.  Said 
Abayi:  And  even  then  only  if  he  stops  for  the  purpose  of  rest- 
ing; but  not  when  he  stops  merely  to  adjust  his  burden  on  his 
shoulders.  Whence  is  this  deduced  ?  From  what  the  master 
said:  If  he  stopped  within  the  limit  of  four  ells  to  rest  he  is 
free,  but  if  he  stopped  to  adjust  the  load  on  his  shoulders  he  is 
culpable.  Beyond  four  ells,  if  he  stopped  to  rest  he  is  culpable, 
but  if  he  stopped  to  adjust  the  burden  on  his  shoulder  he  is  not 
culpable.  What  does  this  imply  ?  It  implies  that  one  cannot 
be  culpable  unless  his  intention  of  removing  was  before  he 
stopped. 

The  rabbis  taught:  If  one  takes  anything  from  his  store  into 
the  market  through  the  alley-way  (where  the  benches  of  market- 
men  are  situated),  he  is  culpable;  it  makes  no  difference  whether 
he  carries,  throws,  or  pushes  it  with  his  arm.     Ben  Azai,  how- 


TRACT    SABBATH.  7 

ever,  said :  If  he  carries  it  in  or  out  he  is  not  culpable,  but  if  he 
throws  or  pushes  it  in  or  out  he  is  culpable.  The  same  we 
have  learned  in  another  Boraitha. 

The  rabbis  taught :  There  are  four  kinds  of  premises  as  re- 
gards the  Sabbath — viz.:  private  ground,  public  ground,  un- 
claimed ground,  and  ground  that  is  under  no  jurisdiction.  What 
is  private  ground  ?  A  ditch  or  hedge  that  is  ten  spans  deep  or 
high  and  four  spans  wide — such  are  absolutely  private  grounds. 
What  is  public  ground  ?  A  country  road  or  a  wide  street,  or 
lanes  open  at  both  ends — such  are  absolutely  public  grounds. 
[So  that  in  these  two  kinds  of  premises  nothing  must  be  carried 
from  one  to  the  other;  and  if  such  was  done  by  one  uninten- 
tionally, he  is  liable  to  a  sin-offering;  if,  however,  intentionally, 
then  he  is  liable  to  be  "  cut  off,"  or  to  suffer  the  extreme  pen- 
alty (at  the  hands  of  human  justice).] 

A  sea,  a  valley  of  fields,  the  front  walk  (before  a  row  of 
stores),  and  unclaimed  ground  are  neither  like  public  nor  like 
private  ground.  [Nothing  should  be  carried  about  there  to 
start  with  ;  but  if  one  has  done  it,  he  is  not  culpable.  Nor 
should  anything  be  taken  out  of  these  grounds  into  public  or 
private  ground,  or  brought  in  from  the  latter  into  these  grounds; 
but  if  one  has  done  so,  he  is  not  culpable.  In  adjoining  court- 
yards of  many  tenants  and  alleys  that  are  open  at  both  ends, 
where  the  tenants  have  made  it  communal  property,*  carrying 
things  is  allowed;  however,  it  is  not  allowed  when  such  is  not 
done.  A  man  standing  on  the  door-step  f  may  take  things 
from  or  give  things  to  the  master  of  the  house ;  so  also  may  he 
take  a  thing  from  a  mendicant  in  the  street  or  give  it  to  him; 
but  he  must  not  take  things  from  the  master  of  the  house  and 
hand  them  over  to  the  mendicant  in  the  street,  nor  take  from 
the  latter  and  transmit  to  the  former.  Still,  if  this  was  done,  all 
the  three  men  are  not  guilty.  Anonymous  teachers,  however, 
say  that  the  door-step  serves  as  two  separate  grounds:  when 
the  door  is  open  it  belongs  to  the  inside,  and  when  the  door  is 
closed  it  belongs  to  the  outside.  But  if  the  door-step  is  ten- 
spans  high  and  four  spans  wide,  it  is  considered  as  a  premises  in 
itself.] 

The  master  said:   "  Such  are  absolutely  private  grounds." 

*  The  technical  expression  is  "to  make  an  Erubh,"  i.e.,  to  mix  their  possessions 
as  if  they  were  partners,  as  explained  in  Tract  Erubin,  I.  2. 

f  A  door-step  is  regarded  as  ground  of  which  the  religious  law  takes  no  cogni- 
zance. 


8  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

What  does  he  intend  to  exclude  (by  this  emphatic  declaration)  ? 
To  exclude  that  which  R.  Jehudah  taught  about  Erubhin  (p.  25). 

"  These  are  absolutely  public  grounds."  What  does  it  mean 
to  exclude  ?  To  exclude  another  instance  of  R.  Jehudah's 
teaching,  concerning  the  enclosure  of  wells.     (Ibid.,  p.  40.) 

Why  does  not  the  Boraitha  count  the  desert  also,  for  have 
we  not  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  Public  ground  is  constituted  by 
public  roads,  wide  streets,  alleys  that  are  open  at  both  ends, 
and  the  desert  ?  Said  Abayi:  It  presents  no  diflficulty.  There 
the  law  was  expounded  as  it  existed  when  Israel  dwelt  in  the 
desert ;  here,  however,  the  law  is  taught  as  it  prevails  at  the 
present  time. 

The  master  said:  "  If  one  has  brought  in  or  taken  out  a 
thing  unintentionally,"  etc.  Is  not  this  self-evident  ?  He 
means  to  say  that  if  the  culprit  did  it  intentionally,  "he  is 
liable  to  be  cut  off,"  etc.  Also  this  is  self-evident  ?  He  comes 
to  teach,  because  of  the  following  statement  of  Rabh,  who 
said  :  "I  found  mysterious  scrolls  in  the  possession  of  my 
uncle,  R.  Hyya,  which  read:  Aysy  ben  Jehudah  says:  There 
are  forty  less  one  principal  acts  of  labor.  A  man,  however, 
cannot  be  guilty  of  performing  but  one.  And  to  the  question, 
How  is  this  to  be  understood  ?  the  answer  was:  It  should  be 
corrected  and  read  :  There  is  one  of  those  acts  of  labor  for  which 
a  man  is  not  guilty.  (In  consequence,  however,  of  the  omis- 
sion just  what  particular  act  of  labor  is  excluded,  all  of  the 
thirty-nine  remained  doubtful);  and  the  Boraitha  teaches  that 
the  labor  mentioned  is  not  one  of  the  doubtful." 

Again,  the  master  said:  "  A  sea,  a  valley  of  fields,"  etc.  Is 
that  so  ?  Have  we  not  learned  (Taharoth,  VI.  7)  that  a  valley 
is,  in  summer  time,  to  be  regarded  as  private  ground  with  ref- 
erence to  the  Sabbath,  and  as  public  ground  with  reference  to 
defilement;  in  the  rainy  season,  however,  it  is  private  ground 
in  all  respects  ?  Said  Ula:  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  unclaimed 
ground,  but  by  calling  it  private  ground  the  Boraitha  only  means 
to  distinguish  it  from  public  ground.  R.  Ashi,  however,  said: 
He  speaks  of  a  valley  in  which  there  are  partitions.* 

"  And  unclaimed  ground."  Are  not  all  the  above-men- 
tioned unclaimed  ground  ?     When  R.  Dimi  came  he  said  in  the 

*  According  to  Rashi,  R.  Ashi  means  to  state  that  even  when  the  capacity  of 
the  valley  was  more  than  two  saoth  and  no  dwelling  was  near,  which  is  always  con- 
sidered as  unclaimed  ground  in  regard  to  this,  nevertheless  it  is  considered  as  pri- 
vate ground,  and  whoever  carries  from  it  into  public  ground  is  guilty. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  9 

name  of  R.  Johanan  :  The  mention  of  "  unclaimed  ground  "  in 
this  case  is  required  merely  to  imply  a  corner  (of  a  private  plot) 
that  adjoins  public  ground;  for  although  at  times  (when  the 
street  is  crowded)  many  people  are  forced  into  this  corner,  it  is 
considered  as  unclaimed  ground,  as  the  public  use  of  it  is  not 
regarded  with  favor.  He  said  also  in  the  name  of  the  same 
authority:  The  space  between  the  pillars  and  the  buildings  (on 
the  side  of  the  street)  is  considered  by  the  law  as  unclaimed 
ground.  Why  so  ?  Because  although  many  walk  there,  still, 
since  one  cannot  make  his  way  in  such  space  freely  (the  row  of 
pillars  being  irregular  or  in  a  broken  line),  it  is  like  unclaimed 
ground. 

R.  Zera  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehudah  said:  The  benches  in 
front  of  pillars  are  regarded  as  unclaimed  ground  (even  if  they 
are  ten  spans  high  and  four  spans  wide).  The  one  who  holds 
that  the  space  between  the  pillars  is  considered  as  such,  will  so 
much  the  more  agree  that  the  benches  in  front  of  the  pillars  are 
considered  such ;  but  he  who  says  that  the  benches  are  so  con- 
sidered, may  hold  that  this  is  so  because  the  encroachment 
upon  them  is  not  regarded  with  favor.  The  ground  between  the 
pillars,  however,  which  is  usually  trodden  by  many  people,  is 
like  public  ground. 

Rabba  b.  Shila  in  the  name  of  R.  Hisda  said:  If  one  throw 
or  plaster  (an  adhesible)  thing  against  the  side  of  a  brick  that 
is  standing  up  in  the  street,  he  is  culpable;  but  if  he  throw  or 
plaster  a  thing  on  top  of  it,  he  is  not.  Abayi  and  Rabha  both 
said :  Provided  the  brick  is  three  spans  high,  so  that  people 
do  not  step  upon  it ;  with  bushes  or  briars,  however,  even  if 
less  than  three  spans  high,  one  is  not  culpable.  And  Hyya 
bar  Rabh  said  :  Even  a  bush  or  briar  must  be  three  spans 
high.* 

Rabba,  of  the  school  of  R.  Shila,  said:  When  R.  Dimi  came 
from  Palestine,  he  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan:  No  space 
can  be  considered  unclaimed  ground  unless  it  has  an  area  of 
four  spans  square,  and  R.  Shesheth  added  that  it  holds  good  up 
to  ten  spans  square.  What  does  it  mean  ?  Shall  we  assume 
that  only  if  it  has  a  partition  of  ten  spans  it  is  unclaimed  ground  ' 
Has  not  R.  Giddell  in  the  name  of  R.  Hyya  bar  Joseph,  quot- 

*  Any  space  that  is  less  than  ten  spans  high  from  the  ground  is  considered  by  the 
law  as  unclaimed  ground,  and  there  things  may  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath  only  as 
above,  while  on  private  ground  things  may  be  handled  freely  within  the  whole  area 
over  w^hich  it  extends. 


JO  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

ing  Rabh,  said :  A  house  that  is  not  ten  spans  high,  but  which 
is  raised  to  that  height  by  the  ceiling,  one  may  handle  on  the 
roof  over  its  entire  area;  inside  of  the  house,  however,  only 
within  four  ells  square  ?  Therefore  we  must  say  that  the  state- 
ment: "  It  holds  good  up  to  ten  spans,"  implies  that  the  law 
of  unclaimed  ground  is  valid  when  the  height  does  not  exceed 
ten  spans.  As  Samuel  said  to  R.  Jehudah  :  "  Ingenious  scholar ! 
treat  not  on  laws  of  the  Sabbath  exceeding  ten  spans  in  height." 
And  to  what  does  it  apply  ?  To  private  ground  it  could  not 
apply,  as  it  is  known  that  private  ground  is  so  considered  to  the 
sky;  hence  it  is  only  to  unclaimed  ground  that  above  ten  spans 
does  not  exist,  as  the  rabbis  have  invested  unclaimed  grounds 
with  the  lenient  regulations  pertaining  to  private  ground — viz. : 
If  the  place  have  an  area  of  four  spans  square,  it  is  unclaimed 
ground;  if  it  has  a  lesser  area,  it  is  not  subservient  to  any  juris- 
diction. And  with  the  lenient  regulations  of  public  ground — 
viz. :  The  place  is  regarded  as  unclaimed  ground  only  to  the 
height  of  ten  spans;  beyond  that  it  ceases  to  be  unclaimed 
ground. 

The  text  says:  "  In  a  house  the  inside  of  which  is  not  ten 
spans  high,"  etc.  Said  Abayi:  If,  however,  one  has  cut  in  it 
an  excavation  four  ells  square,  so  as  to  complete  the  height  of 
ten  spans,  one  may  handle  things  freely  in  the  whole  house. 
Why  so  ?  Because  in  such  a  case  the  entire  space  of  the  house 
(around  the  excavation)  would  be  considered  like  holes  on  private 
ground,  and  it  has  been  taught  that  such  holes  are  regarded  the 
same  as  the  private  ground  itself.  As  to  holes  on  public  ground, 
Abayi  said :  They  are  like  public  ground.  Rabha,  however, 
says  that  they  are  not.  Said  Rabha  to  Abayi:  According  to 
your  theory,  holes  on  public  ground  are  to  be  considered  the 
same  as  the  ground  itself.  In  which  respect,  then,  does  this 
case  differ  from  what  R.  Dimi  said  above  (p.  8)  in  the  name  of 
R.  Johanan  ?  Let,  according  to  thy  opinion,  such  a  corner  be 
considered  as  a  hole  in  public  ground.  Nay,  the  use  of  the 
corner  is  not  considered  favorable  by  people,  while  no  one 
objects  to  the  use  of  a  hole  in  the  street. 

R.  Hisda  said:  If  a  person  erected  a  pole  on  private  ground 
and  threw  something  at  it,  if  that  thing  rested  on  top  of  the 
pole,  and  be  that  pole  a  hundred  ells  high,  the  person  is 
culpable,  for  private  ground  is  absolutely  unlimited  in  height. 
Shall  we  assume  that  R.  Hisda  holds  in  accordance  with 
Rabbi  of   the  following  Boraitha:  "  If  one  threw   a  thing   (in 


TRACT    SABBATH.  n 

the  street)  and  it  rested  upon  the  smallest  cornice*  (of  a 
house),  according  to  Rabbi  he  is  culpable,  and  the  schoolmen 
say  that  he  is  not."  Said  Abayi :  In  private  ground  all  admit 
the  decision  of  R.  Ilisda.  The  case,  however,  in  which  Rabbi 
and  the  sages  difTer  was  a  tree  that  stands  on  private  ground 
with  its  branches  reaching  out  into  public  ground,  and  one 
threw  a  thing  which  rested  on  a  branch.  Rabbi  holds  that  the 
branch  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  root,  but  the  sages  opine  that 
we  need  not  assume  such  to  be  the  case. 

Abayi  said:  If  one  threw  a  bee-hive  which  was  ten  spans 
high,  but  not  six  spans  wide,  into  the  street,  he  is  culpable;  if, 
however,  the  bee-hive  was  six  spans  wide,  he  is  free  (because  it 
is  considered  a  piece  of  private  ground  in  itself).  Rabha,  how- 
ever, said  he  is  not,  even  if  it  be  less  than  six  spans  wide.  Why 
so  ?  Because  it  is  impossible  for  twined  reed  not  to  exceed  the 
given  height. t  In  case  he  threw  the  bee-hive:}:  with  its  mouth 
down,  even  if  the  hive  is  a  trifle  over  seven  spans  high,  he  is 
culpable;  but  if  it  is  seven  and  a  half  spans  high,  he  is  not.  R. 
Ashi,  however,  said:  He  is,  even  if  it  is  seven  and  a  half  spans 
high.  Why  so  ?  Because  the  enclosing  rim  of  the  bee-hive  is 
made  for  the  purpose  of  containing  something  within,  and  not 
to  be  attached  to  the  ground ;  hence  it  is  not  included  in  the 
Laviid  class.  § 

Ula  said :  A  post  nine  spans  high,  which  stands  in  the  street, 
and  people  use  it  to  shoulder  (their  burdens)  on,  if  one  threw 
a  thing  and  it  rested  on  the  top  of  it,  he  is  culpable.  Why  so  ? 
Because  a  thing  that  is  less  than  three  spans  high  is  stepped 
upon  by  many;  a  thing  between  three  and  nine  spans  high  is 
not  used  either  to  step  or  to  shoulder  a  burden  on;  but  if  it  is 
nine  spans  high,  it  is  surely  used  to  shoulder  burdens  on. 

Abayi  questioned  R.  Joseph:  What  is  the  law  of  a  pit  (of 
similar  depth)  ?     Said  he:  The  same  (as  of  the  post).     Rabha, 

*  The  cornice  which  is  spoken  of  above  should  be  like  the  branch  in  this  instance. 

f  The  space  above  ten  spans  does  not  enter  within  the  jurisdiction  of  public  ground. 

X  Here  a  bee-hive  is  spoken  of  which  is  not  six  spans  in  circumference,  i.e.,  less 
than  four  spans  square. 

§  There  is  a  law  of  Mosaic  origin  determining  that  every  object  that  is  not  farther 
from  the  ground  than  three  spans  must  be  considered  "  Lavud,"  i.r. ,  attached  to  the 
ground.  In  the  above  case,  when  a  bee-hive  seven  spans  or  a  trifle  over  seven  spans 
high  is  thrown  to  the  ground,  it  does  not  become  postively  "  I.avud  "  when  within 
three  spans  from  the  grounil,  and  is  thus  considered  ten  spans  in  all.  The  margin  is 
too  small.  It  must  be  seven  and  a  half  spans  high,  and  when  reaching  the  ground 
within  three  spans  the  hive  becomes  "  Lavud,"  and  being  positively  over  ten  spans 
high  is  treated  as  a  piece  of  private  property. 


12  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

however,  said :  A  pit  of  similar  depth  is  not  governed  by  the 
same  law.  Why  so  ?  Because  the  use  (which  is  made  of  a 
thing)  through  compulsion  is  not  called  (a  customary)  use. 

R.  Adda  bar  Mathna  objected  to  Rabha  from  the  following 
Boraitha:  If  one  intended  to  keep  the  Sabbath  on  public  ground 
and  deposited  his  Erubh  in  a  pit  less  than  ten  spans  (below  the 
ground),  his  act  is  valid.  "If  he  deposited  it  more  than  ten 
spans  below  the  ground,  his  Erubh  is  of  no  value."  Let  us  see 
how  was  the  case.  If  the  pit  was  more  than  ten  spans  deep, 
and  by  the  saying  "  he  deposited  it  less  than  ten  spans  below 
the  ground"  is  meant  that  he  raised  the  Erubh  to  a  higher 
place,  and  by  the  saying  "  more  than  ten  spans  "  is  meant  on 
the  bottom  of  the  pit,  then,  at  all  events,  the  Erubh  could  not 
be  of  any  value;  as  he  is  in  public  ground,  and  his  Erubh  is  in 
private,  therefore  we  must  say  that  the  case  was  of  a  pit  less 
than  ten  spans  deep,  and  nevertheless  the  Erubh  is  valid ;  hence 
we  see  that  the  use  of  a  place  through  compulsion  can  at  times 
be  considered  as  customary  use. 

The  answer  was  that  the  Boraitha  is  according  to  Rabbi, 
who  says  that  against  things  which  are  prohibited  only  rabbini- 
cally  because  of  rest  (Shebuoth)  no  precautionary  measures  are 
taken  when  they  are  to  be  done  at  twilight,  and  the  prescribed 
time  for  depositing  an  Erubh  is  twilight;  therefore,  although 
the  use  of  the  pit  which  was  less  than  ten  spans  deep  was  com- 
pulsory, the  Erubh  was  nevertheless  valid,  because  respecting 
twilight  the  rabbis  are  not  particular. 

R.  Jehudah  said:  If  one  moves  a  bundle  of  reeds  by  raising 
one  end  and  throwing  it  over,  then  raising  the  other  end  and 
throwing  it  over,  he  is  not  culpable,  unless  he  lifts  the  entire 
bundle  off  the  ground. 

The  master  said:  "  A  man  standing  on  the  door-step,"  etc. 
What  is  that  step  ?  If  it  is  the  step  of  the  street,  how  may  he 
"take  from  the  master  of  the  house";  does  he  not  transfer 
from  private  ground  into  public  ground  ?  If  it  is  the  step  of  the 
house,  how  may  he  "  take  from  the  mendicant  (standing  in  the 
street)  "  ?  Does  he  not  transfer  from  public  into  private  ground  ? 
And  if  it  is  unclaimed  ground,  how  may  he  "  take  and  give 
intentionally,"  since  a  direct  prohibition  to  that  effect  exists  ? 

Nay,  the  door-step  is  a  place  concerning  which  the  law  has 
no  provision;  as,  for  instance,  it  is  not  four  spans  square.  It  is 
said  elsewhere  by  R.  Dimi  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  that  such 
a  thing  is  not  under  the  jurisdiction. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  13 

The  master  said:  "  All  three  are  not  culpable."  Would 
this  not  be  an  objection  to  Rabha,  who  said  if  one  transfer  an 
object  (in  public  ground)  from  one  to  the  other  limit  of  four 
spans,  even  if  he  moves  it  over  his  head  {i.e.,  above  ten  spans 
from  the  ground),  he  is  culpable  ?  In  the  above-mentioned 
case,  however,  he  is  not. 

Anonymous  teachers  say  "  a  door-step,"  etc.  Is  such  the 
case  even  if  there  is  no  side-beam  to  it  ?  Has  not  R.  Mamma 
bar  Gorion  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said  that  if  it  is  inside  the  door, 
and  not  even  four  spans  square,  there  must  still  be  a  side-beam 
to  make  it  a  free  place  ?  Said  R.  Judah  in  the  name  of  Rabh: 
Here  the  doorstep  of  an  alley  is  treated  of,  the  half  of  which  is 
roofed,  and  the  other  half  not  roofed,  and  the  roofing  is  toward 
the  inside.  In  this  case  when  the  door  is  open  it  is  considered 
like  the  inside,  when  it  is  closed  it  is  like  the  outside.  R.  Ashi, 
however,  said :  The  case  was  of  a  door-step  of  a  house,  but  the 
door  was  topped  by  two  beams,  each  of  which  was  less  than  four 
spans  wide,  and  between  them  the  space  was  less  than  three  spans 
wide,  the  door  itself  being  in  the  middle,  so  that  the  law  of  Lavud 
applies  only  when  the  door  is  open,  and  not  when  it  is  closed; 
therefore  when  it  is  open  the  door-step  is  considered  as  the  inside, 
and  when  it  is  closed  the  door-step  is  regarded  as  the  outside. 

"  If  the  door-step  is  ten  spans  high,"  etc.  This  supports 
the  theory  of  R.  Isaac  bar  Abbimi,  who  said  that  R.  Mair  used 
to  say:  Wherever  thou  flndest  two  distinct  grounds  belonging 
to  the  same  premises  {i.e.,  to  which  the  law  of  premises  regard- 
ing the  Sabbath  applies  equally),  like  a  post  in  private  ground, 
that  is  ten  spans  high  and  four  wide,  it  is  prohibited  to  shoulder 
(a  burden)  on  it.  As  a  precautionary  measure  (enacted  by  the 
rabbis),  for  fear  that  the  same  would  be  done  with  a  rock  of  the 
same  size  that  may  be  found  in  the  street,  and  it  is  biblically 
prohibited  to  shoulder  upon  it. 

MISHNA  //. :  One  shall  not  sit  down  *  before  the  hair-cut- 
ter at  the  approach  of  the  time  for  afternoon  devotion, f  before 

*  The  reference  made  here,  that  one  should  not  sit  down  before  the  hair-cutter 
near  the  time  for  the  afternoon  prayer  is  a  simple  precaution.  The  exact  specification 
for  the  time  is  to  be  found  in  Berachoth,  Perek  IV.,  M.  i. 

f  The  following  discussions  may  seem  to  have  no  direct  connection  with  the  ordi- 
nances pertaining  to  the  Sabbath  ;  however,  they  are  included  in  the  tract  on  account 
of  their  connection  with  the  succeeding  Mishna,  which  commences  :  "  A  tailor  shall 
not  go  out  with  his  needle  when  it  is  nearly  dark  on  Friday."  Incidentally,  the 
injunctions  concerning  the  time  for  the  Min'ha  are  given,  in  order  that  prayer  time 
shall  not  be  forgotten. 


14  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

reciting  his  prayers.  Nor  shall  he  enter  a  bath-room  or  a  tart 
nery  (the  same  is  the  case  with  any  factory  or  large  business), 
or  sit  down  to  eat,  or  start  pleading  a  case  (before  a  judge). 
But  if  he  has  started,  he  need  not  be  interrupted.  One  must 
quit  his  work  to  read  Shema,  but  he  need  not  stop  working  in 
order  to  pray. 

GEMARA:  What  time  of  Min'ha  does  the  Mishna  mean  ? 
Does  it  mean  the  high  afternoon  *  time  ?  Why  should  a  man  not 
be  allowed,  since  the  day  is  still  young  ?  Does  it  mean  the  lesser 
time,  and  still  hold  that  (if  the  man  had  started  the  work)  he 
need  not  discontinue  it  ?  Shall  this  be  taken  as  an  objection  to 
the  opinion  of  R.  Joshua  ben  Levi,  who  said:  "  When  the  time 
of  afternoon  prayer  draws  nigh,  one  must  not  partake  of  any- 
thing before  performing  his  devotion  "  ?  Nay,  he  speaks  here 
of  the  high  time,  and  yet  one  shall  not  begin  cutting  his  hair,  as 
a  precaution  against  accidents,  lest  his  scissors  break;  a  bath  to 
sweat,  lest  he  grow  exhausted ;  a  tannery,  lest  he  notice  some 
damage  to  his  wares  and  become  confused  ;  nor  shall  he  sit  down 
to  eat  lest  the  meal  be  protracted ;  pleading  a  case  of  justice, 
lest  argument  be  advanced  that  overthrows  all  previous  argu- 
ments, and  until  all  this  is  settled  the  Min'ha  prayer  will  be 
forgotten. 

From  what  moment  does  the  act  of  hair-cutting  begin  ?  Said 
R.  Abhin :  From  the  moment  the  barber's  cloth  is  spread  over 
him.  The  act  of  bathing  begins  from  the  moment  the  coat  is 
pulled  off;  tanning  begins  from  the  moment  the  working-apron 
is  tied  around  the  shoulders;  a  meal  begins  from  the  moment 
the  hands  are  washed,  so  said  Rabh ;  but  R.  Hanina  said,  from 
the  moment  one  takes  off  his  girdle.  And  they  do  not  differ. 
Rabh  spoke  of  the  custom  of  his  country,  and  R.  Hanina  spoke 
of  the  custom  of  his  country. 

Abayi  said:  According  to  him  who  holds  that  the  evening 
prayer  is  discretionary,  our  Babylon  colleagues,  as  soon  as  they 
take  off  their  girdle  for  the  meal,  they  must  not  be  troubled  to 
pray  before  meal;  however,  according  to  him  who  holds  that 
even  this  prayer  is  obligatory,  they  must  be  troubled.     But  is 

*  High  afternoon  (Min'ha)  was  the  time  when  the  regular  afternoon  sacrifice  was 
offered  at  the  temple,  about  an  hour  after  midday.  The  lesser  afternoon  time  was 
about  an  hour  before  sunset.  Because  the  time  for  afternoon  devotion  was  calculated 
by  the  offering  of  the  "  gift-sacrifice,"  the  name  of  that  sacrifice,  "  Min'ha,"  is  used 
by  the  rabbis  as  a  technical  term  to  designate  both  the  afternoon  devotion  and  the 
time  when  it  is  to  be  performed. 


TRACT    SABBATH. 


IS 


not  the  afternoon  prayer  obligatory  by  all  means,  and  neverthe- 
less our  Mishna  teaches  that  "  if  he  began  (his  meal)  he  need 
not  be  interrupted,"  to  which  R.  Hanina  said  that  the  loosen- 
ing of  the  girdle  (is  the  beginning)  ?  In  the  case  of  the  after- 
noon prayer,  since  the  time  for  it  is  fixed,  (we  assume)  that  the 
man  will  hasten  and  will  not  fail  to  pray  in  time,  while  for  evening 
prayer,  the  time  for  which  extends  through  the  entire  night,  it 
is  feared  that  he  may  not  hasten,  and  neglect  it. 

R,  Shcsheth  opposed:  Is  it  so  much  trouble  to  put  on  one's 
girdle  ?  Furthermore,  cannot  one  stand  up  (without  a  girdle)  and 
pray?  Nay!  As  it  is  written:  "  Prepare  thyself  to  meet  thy 
God,  O  Israel!"  [Amos,  iv.  12];  and  as  Rabha  b.  R.  Huna 
used  to  put  on  stockings  when  he  stood  up  to  recite  prayers, 
saying:  It  is  written:  "Prepare  thyself,"  etc.  Rabha,  how- 
ever, used  to  throw  off  his  mantle  and  fold  his  hands  when 
he  prayed)  speaking  as  a  slave  before  his  master.  R.  Ashi 
said :  I  have  observed  R.  Kahana.  In  times  of  trouble  he 
threw  off  his  mantle  and  folded  his  hands  when  he  prayed, 
speaking  like  a  slave  before  his  master.  In  times  of  peace 
he  dressed  and  fitted  himself  up  carefully,  saying:  "It  is 
written,  Prepare  thyself  to  meet  thy  God,  O  Israel."  Rabha 
noticed  that  R.  Hamnuna  spent  much  time  at  his  prayers.  Said 
he:  "Thus  they  quit  eternal  life  and  busy  themselves  with 
transient  life."  *  He,  R.  Hamnuna,  however,  thought  that  the 
time  spent  in  prayer  is  a  thing  by  itself,  and  the  time  devoted 
to  study  is  also  a  thing  by  itself.  R.  Jeremiah  was  sitting 
before  R.  Zcra  discussing  a  Halakha.  The  day  was  breaking 
and  time  for  prayer  came,  and  R.  Jeremiah  hastened  for  the 
purpose  of  praying.  Said  R.  Zera  to  him:  "  When  one  turn- 
eth  away  his  ear  so  as  not  to  listen  to  the  law,  even  his  prayer 
becomcth  an  abomination  "  [Prov.  xxviii.  9]. 

At  what  moment  does  the  work  of  dispensing  justice  com- 
mence ?  R.  Jeremiah  and  R.  Jonah — one  said:  "From  the 
moment  the  judges  put  on  their  mantles";  the  other  said: 
"  From  the  moment  the  litigants  begin  pleading."  And  they 
do  not  differ.  The  former  speaks  of  the  instance  of  opening 
court;  the  latter  of  the  instance  when  the  court  was  in  session 
and  the  judges  were  engaged  in  deciding  other  cases. 

Up  to  what  time  should  court  be  in  session  ?     R.  Shesheth 

*  The  rabbi  thus  regarded  prayer  as  a  thing  belonging  to  transient  life,  because 
it  benefits  only  the  individual.  Study,  on  the  other  hand,  is  regarded  as  an  object 
that  concerns  eternal  life,  for  by  its  results  future  generations  may  be  benefited. 


i6  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

said:  "  Up  to  meal  time."  Said  R.  Hama:  From  what  scrip- 
tural passage  have  we  this  ?  From  "  Happy  art  thou,  O  land! 
when  thy  king  is  noble-spirited,  and  thy  princes  eat  in  proper 
time,  for  strengthening  and  not  for  gluttony!"  [Eccl.  x.  17]; 
i.e.,  for  the  strength  of  the  law  and  not  for  indulgence  in  wine. 

The  rabbis  taught :  The  first  hour  (of  the  day)  is  the  time  the 
Lydians  eat  (the  Lydians  were  cannibals) ;  in  the  second  hour 
robbers  eat ;  in  the  third  hour  (rich)  heirs  eat ;  the  fourth  hour 
is  eating-time  for  the  people  in  general ;  in  the  fifth  hour  laborers 
eat ;  in  the  sixth  hour  scholars  eat ;  from  the  last  hour  onward, 
eating  is  like  throwing  a  stone  into  a  barrel  (rather  injurious 
than  beneficial).  Said  Abayi :  This  is  the  case  only  when  one 
has  tasted  nothing  in  the  morning;  but  if  he  did  so,  it  does  not 
matter. 

R,  Ada  bar  Ahba  said :  One  may  say  his  prayers  in  a  new 
bath-room,  which  has  not  been  used.  R.  Hamnuna  said  in  the 
name  of  Ula:  One  is  not  permitted  to  call  Shalom  to  another 
man  in  a  bath-room,  for  it  is  written:  "  He  called  the  Eternal 
Shalom  "  [Judges,  vi.  23].*  If  so,  the  saying  of  the  word  "  faith  " 
should  also  be  prohibited,  for  it  is  written,  "  the  faithful  God  " 
[Deut.  vii.  9].  And  lest  one  say  so  it  is,  has  not  Rabha  bar 
Mehassia  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Hama  bar  Gorion,  quoting 
Rabh,  that  "  faith  "  may  be  mentioned  ?  In  the  latter  case  the 
name  itself  is  not  so  designated,  as  it  means  as  it  is  translated 
above.  But  in  the  former  case  it  (Shalom)  is  a  designation  of 
the  name  itself. 

The  same  says  again  in  the  name  of  the  same  authority:  If 
one  bestows  a  gift  on  his  friend,  he  should  let  him  know  it ;  as 
it  is  written:  "  To  know  that  I,  the  Eternal,  made  you  holy" 
[Ex.  xxxi.  13].  And  there  is  a  Boraitha  which  states  as  fol- 
lows: "  The  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  said  unto  Moses,  I  have 
a  good  gift  in  my  storehouse;  its  name  is  Sabbath,  which  I  wish 
to  bestow  on  Israel;  go  and  announce  it  to  them."  From  this 
R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  said:  One  who  gives  a  child  some 
bread  should  announce  it  to  its  mother.  How  shall  he  do  this  ? 
Said  Abayi :  He  should  put  some  ointment  around  its  eyes  and 
stain  it  with  dye. 

Is  this  so  ?  Has  not  R.  Hama  b.  Hanina  said :  He  who 
bestows  a  gift  on  his  friend  need  not  announce  it  to  him,  for 
it  is  written:  "  Moses  knew  not,"  etc.  [Ex.  xxxiv.  29].     This 

*  Translated    literally.     Leeser,  however,  translates  differently  according  to  the 
sense,  but  his  translation  is  not  correct. 


TRACT    SABBATii  17 

presents  no  difficulty.  The  latter  instance  represents  a  thing 
that  is  to  become  known  by  itself;  the  former  instance  treats  of 
a  thing  that  cannot  become  known  by  itself. 

But  was  not  the  Sabbatli  a  thing  that  was  to  become  known  ? 
Aye,  but  the  reward  (for  keeping  the  Sabbath  holy)  that  attends 
it  was  not  to  be  known. 

R.  Johanan  in  the  name  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Yohayi  said:  All 
the  commands  that  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  gave  unto 
Israel,  were  given  with  publicity,  excepting  the  Sabbath,  which 
was  given  in  privacy,  for  it  is  written:  "  Between  me  and  the 
children  of  Israel  it  is  an  everlasting  sign  "  [  E.x.  xxxi.  17].  If 
such  is  the  case,  the  idolaters  need  not  be  punished  for  its  sake. 
The  Sabbath  was  made  known,  but  the  additional  soul  (a  new 
impetus  of  life)  which  comes  with  the  Sabbath  was  not  made 
known  to  them.  Thus  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish  said:  "  The  Holy 
One,  blessed  be  He,  bestows  an  additional  soul  on  man  on  the 
eve  of  the  Sabbath,  and  takes  it  back  again  when  the  Sabbath 
departs."  * 

R.  Hisdaheld  in  his  hand  two  gifts  f  from  the  flesh  of  an  ox, 
and  said:  "  I  will  give  this  to  the  man  who  will  tell  me  some 
new  teaching  in  the  name  of  Rabh."  Said  Rabha  b.  Mehassia 
to  him,  thus  taught  Rabh :  "  He  who  bestows  a  gift  on  a  friend 
should  let  him  know  it."  And  R.  Hisda  gave  him  the  meat. 
Said  the  former  again :  Art  thou  so  fond  of  the  teachings  of 
Rabh?  "  Aye,  aye,"  he  answered.  Said  he:  This  is  like  that 
which  Rabh  said:  A  silk  garment  is  precious  to  the  wearer. 
Rejoined  R.  Hisda:  Did  Rabh  indeed  say  so  ?  This  second 
thing  is  even  better  than  the  first;  if  I  had  other  gifts  I  would 
bestow  them  too. 

Rabha  b.  Mehassia  in  the  name  of  the  same  said  again:  One 
should  never  show  preference  for  one  child  above  his  other  chil- 
dren, as  for  the  sake  of  two  selas'  weight  of  silk,  which  Jacob 
bestowed  on  Joseph  in  preference  to  his  other  sons,  the  brothers 
became  jealous  of  Joseph,  and  the  development  brought  about 
our  ancestors'  migration  into  Egypt. 

Again  he  continued:  One  should  always  endeavor  to  seek  a 
dwelling  in  a  city  of  recent  settlement,  for  the  settlement  being 
recent,  the  sins  are  few.     As  it  is  written :  "  Behold,  this  city  is 

*  Transposed  from  Tract  Betzah,  p.  16^. 

\  He  was  an  Aaronite,  and  in  his  time  they  used  to  give  the  Aaronites  their  meat- 
offerings. In  the  time  of  K.  Hisda  the  descendants  of  the  priests  still  received  their 
titles. 

VOL.  I. — 2. 


i8  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

near  to  flee  thereunto,  and  it  is  little"  [Gen.  xix.  20].  What 
does  it  mean,  it  is  near  and  small  ?  Could  not  he  see  this  him- 
self ?  But  it  means  its  settlement  is  recent  and  therefore  its 
sins  are  not  many. 

The  same  said  again:  A  city  whose  roofs  are  higher  than 
that  of  the  synagogue  will  ultimately  be  destroyed,  as  it  is  writ- 
ten: "  To  raise  high  the  house  of  our  God,"  etc.  [Ezra,  ix.  9]. 
However,  this  refers  only  to  the  roofs  of  the  houses,  but  as  to 
the  tops  of  towers  and  palaces,  it  does  not  concern  them.  Said 
R.  Ashi :  /  have  prevented  Matha  Mehassia  from  being  destroyed 
(as  he  had  made  the  prayer-house  and  the  college  higher  than 
other  houses).  But  was  it  not  destroyed  later  ?  Yea,  but  not 
for  this  sin. 

He  also  said:  '^  It  is  better  to  be  dependent  on  an  Israelite 
than  on  an  idolater;  on  an  idolater  than  on  a  Persian;  on  a 
Persian  schoolman f  than  on  a  scholar;  on  a  scholar  than  on 
a  widow  or  an  orphan. 

He  also  said :  Rather  any  sickness  than  sickness  of  the  bowels ; 
rather  any  pain  than  pain  of  the  heart ;  rather  any  disorder  than 
a  disorder  in  the  head ;  rather  any  evil  than  a  bad  wife. 

Again  he  said  :  If  all  the  seas  were  ink,  if  all  the  swamps  were 
producing  pens,  if  the  whole  expanse  of  the  horizon  were  parch- 
ment, and  all  the  men  were  scribes,  the  (thoughts  that  fill  the) 
void  of  a  ruler's  heart  could  not  be  written  in  full.  Whence  is 
this  deduced  ?  Said  R.  Mesharsia:  "  The  heavens  as  to  height 
and  the  earth  as  to  depth,  and  the  hearts  of  kings  cannot  be 
fathomed"  [Prov.  xxv.  3]. 

"  To  read  Shema,"  etc.  Was  it  not  stated  before  that  they 
need  not  be  interrupted  ?  This  sentence  applies  to  study,  as 
we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  "  Scholars  that  are  engaged  in 
studying  the  Law  must  stop  for  the  reading  of  Shema,  but  they 
need  not  stop  for  prayer."  Said  R.  Johanan  :  Such  is  the  case 
with  men  like  R.  Simeon  b.  Yo'hai  and  his  colleagues,  for  learn- 
ing was  their  profession ;  but  men  like  ourselves  must  stop  for 
prayer  also.  But  have  we  not  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  "  As 
(students)  need  not  quit  (their  studies)  for  prayer,  so  they  need 
not  stop  them  for  Shema  "  ?     This  applies  only  to  the  study  of 

*  These  somewhat  abstruse  distinctions  are  made  for  the  reason  that  a  depend- 
ent of  a  scholar,  orphan,  or  widow  is  liable  to  incur  greater  punishment  for  an  injury 
done  his  master  than  were  his  master  an  Ishmaelite,  Persian,  etc. 

f  The  title  ' '  Habher  "  is  the  exact  equivalent  of ' '  fellowship  "  as  a  college  position 
in  our  time  ;  we  translate  it  "  schoolman." 


TRACT    SABBATH.  19 

the  establishment  of  leap  year;  as  R.  Ada  b.  Ahba,  and  so  also 
the  sages  of  Hagrunia  in  the  name  of  R.  Elazar  b.  Zadok,  de- 
clared: "  When  we  were  engaged  in  fixing  a  leap  year  at  Yabne, 
we  did  not  quit  (our  work)  either  for  Shema  or  for  prayer." 

MISHNA  ///. :  A  tailor  shall  not  go  out  with  his  needle 
when  it  is  nearly  dark  on  Friday,  lest  he  forget  and  go  out 
(carrying  it  about  with  him)  after  dark ;  nor  a  scribe  with  his 
pen ;  nor  shall  one  search  for  vermin  in  his  garments  or  read 
before  the  lamp-light  (Friday  night).  Of  a  verity  it  is  said,  an 
instructor  may  follow  the  children  when  they  read,  but  he  shall 
not  read  himself  (before  the  lamp-light).  In  a  similar  manner 
it  is  said  that  one  afflicted  with  gonorrhoea  should  not  eat  from 
the  same  plate  with  a  woman  that  has  the  same  disease,  lest 
they  become  accustomed  to  one  another  and  come  to  sin. 

GEMARA:  "  A  tailor  sJiall  not  go  out,''  etc.  Does  not  the 
Mishna  mean  when  the  needle  is  stuck  in  the  garment  ?  Nay, 
it  treats  of  the  case  when  (the  tailor)  holds  it  in  his  hand. 

Come  and  hear.  "  A  tailor  shall  not  go  out  with  the  needle 
sticking  in  his  garment."  Does  this  not  treat  of  the  eve  of  the 
Sabbath  ?     Nay,  it  treats  of  the  Sabbath  itself. 

But  is  there  not  another  Boraitha:  "A  tailor  shall  not  go 
out  with  the  needle  sticking  in  his  garment  on  Friday  when  it  is 
nearly  dark  "  ?  This  was  taught  according  to  R.  Jehudah,  who 
holds  that  a  laborer  (carrying  a  thing)  after  the  manner  of  his 
profession  is  culpable;  as  we  have  learned  in  the  following 
Tosephtha:  "  A  tailor  shall  not  go  out  with  his  needle  sticking 
in  his  garment;  nor  a  carpenter  with  his  ruler  behind  his  ear; 
nor  a  cloth  cleaner  with  the  spanning  cord  behind  his  ear;  nor 
a  weaver  with  the  stuffing  cotton  behind  his  ear;  nor  a  dyer 
with  samples  around  his  neck;  nor  a  money  changer  with  the 
dinar  in  his  ear.  If,  however,  they  did  so,  they  are  free,  though 
they  ought  not  to  start  it ;  so  is  the  decree  of  R.  Mair.  R.  Jehu- 
dah, however,  says:  The  laborer  only  (going  out)  after  the  man- 
ner of  his  profession  is  culpable;  but  not  common  men." 

In  the  school  of  R.  Ishmael  it  was  taught:  "  One  may  go 
out  with  the  phylacteries  on  his  head  at  twilight  on  the  eve  of 
Sabbath."  Why  so  ?  As  Rabha  b.  R.  Huna  said:  One  must 
feel  the  phylacteries  on  his  head  at  all  times,  and  in  consequence 
he  will  be  reminded,  through  feeling  the  phylacteries,  that  he 
must  remove  them  before  the  Sabbath. 

There  is  a  Boraitha:  A  man  must  examine  his  garments  on 
Friday  evening,  when  it  is  getting  dark,  to  see  whether  there  is 


20  THE    BABYLOxMAN    TALMUD. 

anything  in  them  that  must  not  be  carried  about  on  the  Sab- 
bath. Said  R.  Joseph :  This  is  an  important  ordinance  con- 
cerning the  Sabbath. 

"  One  shall  not  search  for  vermin,''  etc.  Does  it  mean  one 
shall  not  search  for  vermin  in  the  day-time  (of  a  Sabbath)  lest 
he  destroy  any ;  and  he  shall  not  read  before  a  lamp-light  lest 
he  snuff  (the  wick);  or  are  both  ordinances  connected  with  each 
other  so  fis  to  make  the  ordinance  prohibiting  the  snuffing  of 
the  wick  binding  ?  Come  and  hear.  "  One  shall  not  search  for 
vermin  nor  read  before  the  lamp-light."  What  can  we  under- 
stand from  this  Boraitha  better  than  from  our  Mishna  ?  Come 
and  hear  another  Boraitha:  "  One  shall  not  search  before  the 
lamp-light;  also,  one  shall  not  read  before  it."  These  two 
ordinances  are  among  the  other  established  Halakhas  in  the 
attic  of  Hananiah  b.  Hyzkiyah  b.  Gorion.  From  this  is  to  be 
inferred  that  both  cases  were  prohibited  for  the  same  reason, 
that  they  may  entail  snuffing  the  wick. 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel  said  :  One  must  not  try  to 
distinguish  even  between  his  own  and  his  wife's  garments  (before 
the  lamp-light).  Said  Rabha:  This  is  said  only  for  the  inhabitants 
of  Ma'hoza,*  but  among  the  dwellers  of  rural  places  the  garments 
can  easily  be  distinguished.  And  even  among  the  inhabitants  of 
Ma'hoza,  only  the  garments  of  old  women  cannot  easily  be  dis- 
tinguished from  those  of  the  men,  but  not  of  young  women. 

The  rabbis  taught:  One  shall  not  search  for  vermin  in  the 
street  out  of  self-respect.  In  the  same  wise,  R.  Jehudah  or  R. 
Ne'hemiah  taught  that  one  shall  not  vomit  in  the  street  out  of 
self-respect.  The  rabbis  taught:  One  who  searches  his  gar- 
ments and  finds  a  louse  shall  not  crack  it,  but  simply  rub  it  with 
his  fingers  and  throw  it  away  (on  the  Sabbath).  Says  R.  Huna: 
This  should  also  be  done  even  on  week  days,  out  of  self-respect. 

We  have  learned,  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar  said:  "  One  shall  not 
kill  vermin  on  the  Sabbath."  So  said  Beth  Shamai ;  Beth  Hil- 
lel,  however,  allowed  this.  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar  used  also  to 
say  in  the  name  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel:  "  One  is  not  allowed 
to  negotiate  marriage  engagements  for  children,  nor  to  engage 
teachers  or  artisan  masters  for  children,  nor  to  pay  visits  of  con- 
dolence to  mourners,  nor  to  visit  the  sick  on  the  Sabbath.  Such 
is  the  decree  of  Beth  Shamai;  Beth  Hillel,  however,  allows  all 
this." 

*  Large  cities  where  the  men  are  effeminate  and  wear  garments  like  the  women. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  21 

The  rabbis  taught :  If  one  comes  to  visit  the  sick  on  the  Sab- 
bath, he  shall  say:  "  It  is  Sabbath  and  we  are  not  to  crj-,  but 
reHcf  is  drawing  nigh."  R.  Mair  said,  one  should  say:  "  The 
Sabbatli  (if  respected)  may  bring  mercy."  Rabbi  Jehudah  said: 
"  May  the  Omnipotent  have  mercy  with  thee  and  toward  the 
sick  of  Israel."  R,  Jose  said:  "  May  the  Omnipotent  bestow 
mercy  on  thee  amongst  the  sick  of  Israel."  Shebhna  the  Jeru- 
salemite  when  he  entered  (a  sick-room  on  the  Sabbath)  said, 
"  Shalom  "  ;  on  leaving  he  said:  "  To  cry!  it  is  Sabbath;  never- 
theless, relief  is  nigh  "  ;  "  As  His  mercies  are  great,"  and  "  Rest 
ye  in  peace." 

According  to  whom  is  what  R.-Hanina  said:  "  He  who  has 
a  sick  person  in  the  house  should  include  him  (in  his  prayers) 
amongst  the  sick  in  Israel  "  ?  It  was  in  accordance  with  R. 
Jose.  R.  Hanina  also  said  that  it  was  with  diflficulty  that  the 
rabbis  allowed  visits  of  condolence  to  be  paid  to  mourners  and 
to  visit  the  sick  on  a  Sabbath.  Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  said :  When 
I  accompanied  R.  Eliezer  while  visiting  the  sick,  I  sometimes 
heard  him  say  (in  Hebrew):  "  May  the  Omnipotent  mind  thee 
in  peace,"  and  sometimes  (in  Aramaic):  "May  the  Merciful 
remember  thee  in  peace."  How  could  he  do  this?  Did  not 
R.  Jehudah  say:  "  One  should  never  pray  for  what  he  needs  in 
the  Aramaic  language  "  ?  And  also  R.  Johanan  :  "  The  angels 
of  service  do  not  listen  to  one's  prayer  in  the  Aramaic  tongue, 
for  they  know  not  that  language."  The  case  of  a  sick  person 
is  difTerent,  as  SJickliina  itself  \s  with  him.  (This  will  be  explained 
in  Tract  Nedarin  in  the  proper  place.) 

"  One  shall  not  read  before  the  lamp-light."  Rabba  said:  It 
is  the  same  even  if  the  lamp  is  placed  two  (men's)  heights  (from 
the  ground) ;  even  two  stories  high,  or  even  if  it  is  on  top  of  ten 
houses,  one  above  the  other.  "  One  shall  not  read,"  but  tzuo 
may?  Have  we  not  learned,  "  Neither  one  nor  two  "  ?  Said  R. 
Elazar:  This  presents  no  diflficult)'.  Our  Mishna  treats  of  two 
reading  one  subject ;  and  there  it  treats  of  two  reading  different 
subjects.  Said  R.  Huna:  Around  the  hearth-fire  even  ten  per- 
sons shall  not  read  together.  Rabha,  however,  said :  A  promi- 
nent man  may  read,  as  he  would  not  degrade  himself  by  stirring 
the  fire. 

An  objection  was  raised  from  the  following:  One  should  not 
read  before  a  lamp-light,  lest  he  snufT  the  wick.  Said  R.  Ish- 
mael  b.  Elisha:  "  I  will  read  and  not  snuff  it."  Once  he  actually 
read  and  was  tempted  to  snuff  the  wick.     And  he  exclaimed: 


22  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

"  How  great  is  the  saying  of  the  sages,  that  one  should  not  read 
before  a  lannp-light."  R.  Nathan  said:  He  actually  snuffed  the 
wick  and  noted  in  his  diary:  "  I,  Ishmael  b.  Elisha,  have  read 
before  the  lamp  on  Sabbath,  and  have  snuffed  the  wick.  When 
the  holy  temple  shall  be  rebuilt,  I  will  bring  a  fat  sin-offering." 
Said  R.  Aba:  With  R.  Ishmael  b.  Elisha  it  is  different,  for 
while  studying  the  Law  he  always  considered  himself  common. 

There  is  one  Boraitha:  A  servant  may  examine  cups  and 
dishes  (to  see  if  they  are  clean,  before  the  lamp);  and  another, 
that  he  may  not.  This  presents  no  difficulty.  The  former 
treats  of  a  servant  in  permanent  engagement;*  the  latter  of 
one  who  performs  occasional  service.  And  if  you  wish,  it  may 
be  said  that  both  Boraithas  apply  to  a  permanent  servant :  the 
latter  in  the  case  of  a  lamp  which  is  fed  with  oil,  the  former  in 
the  case  where  it  is  fed  with  naphtha.  (Naphtha  emits  a  bad 
odor;  he  will  therefore  not  be  tempted  to  touch  it.) 

The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question :  May  a  servant  that 
is  not  permanently  engaged  (examine  his  utensils)  before  a  lamp 
fed  with  oil  ? 

Said  Rabh :  The  rule  is  laid  down  (that  he  may),  but  we  do 
not  practise  it.  R.  Jeremiah  b.  Aba,  however,  said :  So  is  the 
rule,  and  so  we  practise. 

Once  R.  Jeremiah  b.  Aba  took  (his  Friday  night  meal)  at  the 
house  of  R.  Assi.  His  servant  (R.  Jeremiah's  retainer,  who 
was  at  the  time  doing  occasional  service  in  R.  Assi's  house)  pro- 
ceeded to  examine  (the  dishes)  before  the  lamp.  Said  the  wife 
of  R.  Assi  (to  her  husband) :  "  You,  my  master,  do  not  approve 
of  this."  "  Let  him  be,"  answered  R.  Assi;  "  he  acts  accord- 
ing to  the  opinion  of  his  master." 

"  Of  a  verity  they  said,  an  instructor,"  etc.  Was  it  not  said, 
"  He  may  see  "  ?  For  what  purpose  should  he  do  this  but  to 
read  ?  Nay;  he  should  see  in  order  to  watch  the  sequence  of 
paragraphs.  So  also  said  Rabba  b.  Samuel:  "  He  may  arrange 
the  sequence  of  paragraphs."  Consequently,  may  he  not  read 
the  paragraphs  through  ?  Would  this  not  oppose  the  statement 
of  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel,  who  said:  "  Children  in  their  rabbi's 
house  used  to  arrange  their  paragraphs  and  read  before  the 
lamp-light"  ?  With  children  the  case  is  different;  out  of  fear 
for  their  master  they  will  not  be  led  to  adjust. 

MISHNA   IV.:    And    these    are    some   of    the    regulations 

*  A  servant  in  permanent  engagement  is  more  careful  about  his  dishes,  for  fear 
that  he  may  lose  his  position.     He  is  therefore  more  apt  to  adjust  the  wick. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  23 

enacted  in  the  attic  of  Hananiah  b.  Hyzkiyah  b.  Gorion,  when 
the  rabbis  came  to  visit  him.  They  called  the  roll  and  found 
that  the  disciples  of  Shamai  were  more  numerous  than  those  of 
Hillel,  and  they  enforced  eighteen  regulations  on  that  day. 

GEMARA:  Said  Abayi  to  R.  Joseph:  Docs  the  expression 
"  and  these,"  etc.,  refer  to  the  things  that  were  mentioned,  or 
is  "  these"  used  with  reference  to  things  to  be  mentioned  far- 
ther on  ?  Come  and  hear.  "  One  shall  not  search  for  vermin 
or  read  before  a  lamp-light ;  and  these  are  some  of  the  regula- 
tions," etc.  From  this  it  is  obvious  that  "  and  these"  is  the 
correct  version. 

The  rabbis  taught:  The  "  Roll  of  Fasts"  was  written  by 
Hananiah  b.  Hyzkiyah  and  his  company,  for  they  thought  with 
fondness  of  the  troubles  (which  their  race  had  experienced). 
Said  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel:  We  also  think  with  fondness  of 
the  troubles;  but  what  shall  we  do  ?  If  we  were  to  record  (all 
the  troubles  our  race  has  experienced  since  that  time)  we  would 
never  finish.  It  may  also  be  said:  A  fool  never  feels  trouble, 
or  (more  pointedly)  a  dead  member  on  a  living  body  feels  not 
the  lancet.* 

MISHNA  V.  :  The  Beth  Shamai  said:  Ink,  dye  material,  or 
fodder  (for  animals)  shall  not  be  put  into  water  (on  Friday) 
unless  there  is  still  time  for  them  to  soak  through  while  it 
is  day.  The  Beth  Hillel,  however,  permits  this.  The  Beth 
Shamai  prohibits  putting  bundles  of  linen  thread  (to  bleach) 
into  the  oven  unless  there  is  sufficient  time  left  for  them  to 
become  heated  through  while  it  is  yet  day,  or  wool  into  a  dye- 
kettle  unless  there  is  still  time  for  it  to  be  soaked  through  the 
same  day.  The  Beth  Hillel  permits  this.  The  Beth  Shamai 
says:  Traps  shall  not  be  set  for  animals  and  birds,  or  nets  for 
fishes  (on  Friday),  unless  there  is  still  time  for  them  to  be  caught 
before  sunset.  The  Beth  Hillel  permits  this.  The  Beth  Shamai 
says:  One  shall  not  sell  anything  to  a  Gentile  (on  Friday)  or 
help  him  load  his  animal,  or  help  him  shoulder  a  burden  unless 
he  (the  Gentile)  can  reach  (with  his  load)  the  nearest  place  while 
it  is  yet  day.     The  Beth  Hillel  permits  this.     The  Beth  Shamai 

♦  The  Gemara  discusses  here  the  eighteen  precautionary  measures  whicii  were 
enacted  in  the  attic  referred  to,  and  tried  also  to  find  them  out,  as  what  they  were  is 
not  mentioned  in  the  Mishna  at  all.  As  none  of  them,  except  the  two  mentioned  in 
the  Mishna  (which  is  not  discussed  at  all),  belong  to  Sabbath,  we  have  omitted  the 
whole  discussion.  However,  we  have  named  all  of  them  in  the  appendix  to  this 
tract  [Vol.  II.,  pp.  3S1-390,  q.  v.\  and  we  have  shown  that  all  of  these  enactments 
were  political  and  of  great  necessity  at  that  time. 


24  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

says :  Hides  shall  not  be  given  to  a  tanner  nor  clothes  to  a  Gen- 
tile washer  (on  a  Friday)  unless  there  is  still  sufficient  time  left 
for  him  (the  Gentile)  to  finish  it  while  it  is  day.  The  perform- 
ance of  all  these  acts  of  labor  heretofore  mentioned  was  per- 
mitted by  the  Beth  Hillel  (on  Friday)  while  the  sun  was  still 
shining.  Rabbi  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel  said:  At  my  father's  house 
it  was  the  custom  to  give  out  white  clothes  to  a  Gentile  washer 
three  days  before  the  Sabbath.  Both  schools,  however,  agree 
that  the  presses  may  be  put  on  olives  and  grapes  in  the  press- 
pits  (as  long  as  it  is  still  daytime). 

GEMARA:  Who  is  the  Tana  that  maintains  that  putting 
water  on  ink  constitutes  the  final  work  on  it  ?  Said  R.  Joseph: 
(It  is  Rabbi  of  the  following  Boraitha:  "  If  one  put  flour  (in  a 
vessel)  and  another  one  put  water  on  it,  the  latter  is  culpable 
(of  the  act  of  kneading);  so  is  the  decree  of  Rabbi."  R.  Jose, 
however,  says  that  one  is  not  culpable  until  he  kneads  it. 

The  rabbis  taught :  At  twilight  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath  one 
may  make  an  opening  in  a  spring,  so  that  the  water  run  into 
the  garden  the  whole  day  (of  the  Sabbath).  He  may  also  put 
smoking  incense  underneath  garments,  so  that  they  hold  the 
fragrance  the  whole  day.  It  is  also  allowed  to  put  burning  sul- 
phur under  enamelled  vessels,  so  that  its  smoke  work  on  the 
paints  the  whole  Sabbath  day.  It  is  also  allowed  for  one  to 
put  a  balm  on  the  eye  and  a  plaster  on  a  wound,  so  that  the 
healing  process  continue  throughout  the  Sabbath;  it  is  prohib- 
ited, however,  to  put  grain  into  a  water-mill,  unless  there  is  yet 
enough  daytime  left  for  it  to  be  ground.  Why  so  ?  Said  R. 
Joseph:  Because  one  is  obliged  to  give  rest  even  to  tools  on 
Sabbath. 

Now,  since  it  was  said  that  the  resting  of  tools  is  obligatory 
according  to  the  decision  of  the  Beth  Hillel,  why  did  they  per- 
mit putting  sulphur  and  incense  to  smoke,  or  linen  thread  to 
bleach  during  the  Sabbath  ?  Because  no  act  was  being  done, 
and  (the  tools  were  practically)  at  rest.  But  do  not  traps  set  for 
animals,  birds,  and  nets  for  fishes  work  ?  Why,  then,  did  they 
allow  these  ?  Here,  too,  they  treated  only  of  fishers'  rods  and 
traps, which  do  no  work  (but  into  which  animals  work  themselves). 

Now,  as  R.  Oshia  has  declared  in  the  name  of  R.  Assi,  that 
only  the  Beth  Shamai  holds  that  there  is  a  biblical  obligation 
for  the  resting  of  tools,  but  not  the  Beth  Hillel,  all  the  acts 
enumerated  above  are  permitted  by  the  latter,  even  in  the  event 
of  the  tools  performing  work. 


TRACT    SACBATII.  25 

Who  is  the  Tana  of  what  the  rabbis  taught  anonymously  as 
follows:  "A  woman  shall  not  put  dried  lentils  and  peas  into 
the  oven  on  Friday  when  it  is  getting  dark  and  leave  them  there 
(to  get  soft);  and  if  she  needs  them  for  after  the  Sabbath  she 
shall  not  use  them,  unless  she  waits  the  length  of  time  re- 
quired to  cook  them  afresh.  In  the  same  wise  a  baker  shall  not 
put  a  vessel  with  water  in  the  oven  on  Friday  when  it  is  getting 
dark;  and  if  he  needs  (the  hot  water)  for  after  the  Sabbath,  he 
shall  not  use  it  unless  he  waits  the  length  of  time  it  would 
require  to  boil  it  afresh."  Shall  we  assume  that  this  is  in 
accordance  with  the  Beth  Shamai,  but  not  with  Beth  Hillel  ?  It 
may  also  be  in  accordance  with  the  Beth  Hillel,  as  the  pro- 
hibitions were  made  as  precautionary  measures  lest  one  stir  the 
coals.  If  such  is  the  case,  the  burning  of  incense  and  sulphur 
(as  mentioned  in  our  Mishna)  should  also  be  prohibited  for  the 
same  reason.  There  is  to  be  feared  that  the  coals  might  be 
stirred,  while  here  is  no  fear  of  that,  as  when  the  coals  are 
stirred  smoke  may  arise  and  injure  the  enamel  or  the  garments. 
In  the  case  of  the  linen  thread  also,  no  precautionary  measure 
was  necessary,  because  the  draught  caused  by  the  admission  of 
air  into  the  oven  would  prove  injurious  to  the  thread,  and  there- 
fore one  would  not  open  the  oven  to  stir  the  fire.  Then  let  the 
placing  of  wool  into  a  (dye)  kettle  be  prohibited  as  a  precaution- 
ary measure  ?  The  Mishna  treats  of  a  kettle  that  stands  at 
some  distance  from  the  fire;  so  says  Samuel.  Still,  the  appre- 
hension exists  that  he  may  stir  the  dye.  Nay,  we  speak  of 
a  kettle  whose  cover  is  sealed  with  clay. 

Now  that  the  master  said  that  the  prohibitions  (of  the  Bo- 
raitha)  are  only  precautionary  measures,  to  prevent  one  from 
stirring  the  coals,  a  cold  pot  may  be  put  in  the  oven  on  Friday 
when  it  is  getting  dark.  Why  so  ?  Because  the  victuals  in  it 
cannot  be  used  the  same  evening,  and  he  (the  cook)  will  never 
think  of  stirring  the  coals. 

"  One  shall  not  sell  a  tiling  to  a  Gentile,"  etc.  The  rabbis 
taught:  The  Beth  Shamai  said:  One  shall  not  sell  a  thing  to 
a  Gentile,  nor  lend  it  to  him,  nor  help  him  carry  it,  nor  lend 
him  nor  present  him  with  any  money  on  Sabbath  eve  unless 
there  is  time  enough  for  the  recipient  to  reach  his  house  before 
night  comes  on.  The  Beth  Hillel  said  (all  this  may  be  done)  if 
there  is  time  enough  to  reach  his  house  at  the  wall  of  the  city 
where  he  lives.  R.  Aqiba,  however,  says:  It  is  sufficient  if  there 
is  time  enough  for  the  Gentile  to  leave  the  house  of  the  Jew. 


26  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

Said  R.  Jose  b.  Jehudah:  "  R.  Aqiba  contends  that  his  teach- 
ing does  not  contradict  that  of  the  Beth  Hillel,  but  merely 
explains  the  latter's  real  intent," 

The  rabbis  taught :  One  may  put  down  eatables  on  his  own 
grounds  for  a  Gentile  (on  the  Sabbath).  If  the  latter  takes  the 
eatables  and  carries  them  off,  he  need  not  prevent  him. 

The  rabbis  taught:  One  shall  not  hire  out  his  tools  to  a  Gen- 
tile on  Friday,  but  he  may  do  so  on  Wednesday  or  Thursday 
(even  if  he  knows  positively  that  the  Gentile  will  use  them  on 
Sabbath).  In  the  same  manner,  it  is  prohibited  to  transmit  a 
letter  by  a  Gentile  on  Friday,  but  it  may  be  sent  on  Wednesday 
or  Thursday.  It  was  said  of  R.  Jose  the  Priest,  according  to 
others  the  Pious,  that  his  handwriting  was  never  found  in  the 
hands  of  a  Gentile  (for  fear  that  it  might  be  carried  on  the 
Sabbath). 

The  rabbis  taught:  One  shall  not  send  a  letter  by  a  Gentile 
on  Friday  unless  he  stipulated  a  certain  sum  for  the  delivery. 
If  such  a  stipulation  was  not  made,  the  Beth  Shamai  says  it 
must  not  be  delivered,  unless  the  messenger  has  time  to  reach 
the  house  in  which  it  is  to  be  delivered  (before  sunset);  the 
Beth  Hillel,  however,  maintains:  He  may  do  it  if  the  messenger 
has  time  to  reach  the  house  nearest  to  the  wall  of  the  city 
where  the  letter  is  to  be  delivered.  Was  it  not  taught  at  first 
that  "  one  shall  not  send  "  at  all  ?  This  presents  no  difficulty. 
In  the  first  part  the  case  treats  of  a  town  which  has  no  post- 
office  ;  in  the  latter  part  the  Boraitha  speaks  of  a  town  which 
has  one. 

The  rabbis  taught:  One  shall  not  embark  on  a  vessel  less 
than  three  days  before  the  Sabbath.  This  is  the  case  if  one 
goes  (to  sea)  on  private  business,  but  if  he  goes  for  a  meritori- 
ous act,  he  may  do  so.  He  may  make  a  stipulation  with  the 
owner  of  the  boat  that  it  shall  rest  on  Sabbath,  although  he  is 
aware  that  he  will  not  do  so ;  so  is  the  decree  of  Rabbi.  R. 
Simeon  b.  Gamaliel,  however,  maintains  that  such  a  stipulation 
is  not  necessary.  To  travel  from  Tyre  to  Zidon  (a  journey  of 
a  few  hours)  one  may  embark  even  on  Friday. 

The  rabbis  taught :  Siege  shall  not  be  laid  to  Gentile  cities 
less  than  three  days  before  the  Sabbath,  but  when  the  siege  is 
laid  it  need  not  be  interrupted.  So  also  Shamai  used  to  say: 
It  is  written,  "  until  it  is  brought  down  "  [Deut.  xx.  20],  i.e., 
even  on  a  Sabbath  day. 

**  R.  Simeon  b.   Gamaliel  said,"  etc.     There  is  a  Boraitha: 


TRACT    SABBATH.  27 

R.  Zadok  said:  "  It  was  the  custom  at  the  house  of  Rabban 
Gamaliel  to  give  white  clothes  to  the  washer  three  days  before 
the  Sabbath,  but  colored  clothes  even  on  a  Friday."  From 
this  we  have  learned  that  it  is  harder  to  wash  white  clothes  than 
colored  ones.  Abayi  gave  colored  clothes  to  the  washer  and 
asked:  How  much  wilt  thou  take  for  washing  them?  "As 
much  as  for  white  clothes,"  answered  the  washer.  Said  Abayi: 
"  The  rabbis  have  preceded  thee  with  their  declaration  "  (that 
white  clothes  are  harder  to  wash). 

"  Both  schools  agree,"  etc.  Why  did  the  school  of  Shamai 
enforce  precautionary  measures  in  all  the  previous  cases,  but  in 
the  case  of  wine  and  oil  presses  they  did  not  do  so  ?  They  pro- 
hibited the  performance  of  such  labor  as  involves  the  obligation 
of  a  sin-offering,  if  performed  (unintentionally)  on  the  Sabbath, 
or  on  a  Friday  when  approaching  darkness;  but  for  the  putting 
of  press  beams  on  grapes  or  olives,  which  does  not  involve  the 
obligation  of  a  sin-ofTering  even  if  done  on  the  Sabbath,  the 
precautionary  measure  was  not  necessary. 

From  this  it  may  be  inferred  that  work  which  continues  by 
itself  may  well  be  started  (late  on  Friday).*  Who  is  the  Tana 
that  holds  so?  Said  R.  Jose:  R.  Ishmael  of  the  Mishna 
(Ediath,  II.  7):  "  Garlic,  unripe  grapes,  and  green  grain-stalks 
which  were  crushed  (on  Friday)  while  yet  day,  may  be  put 
under  pressure  at  sunset;  so  is  the  decree  of  R.  Ishmael. 
R.  Aqiba,  however,  says:  "  It  must  not  be  done."  R.  Elazar 
(b.  Pedath),  however,  said  that  the  Tana  in  question  is  R.  Elazar 
(b.  Samoa)  of  the  following  Mishna:  "  Honeycombs  that  were 
crushed  on  Friday  shall  not  be  put  in  the  press  (at  sunset),  so 
that  the  honey  run  out  by  itself;  R.  Elazar,  however,  permits 
it."  R.  Jose  b.  Hanina  has  practised  in  accordance  with  the 
theory  of  R.  Ishmael. 

The  oil  and  the  covers  of  the  small  oil-presses  Rabh  pro- 
hibits to  handle  on  the  Sabbath.  Samuel,  however,  permits  it. 
The  same  is  the  case  with  reed-cloth ;  Rabh  prohibits,  and  Sam- 
uel permits  (to  handle).  Covers  that  are  used  on  board  of  a 
vessel  to  cover  the  deck  Rabh  prohibits,  and  Samuel  permits  the 
handling  of. 

R.  Na'hman  said :  "  A  goat  that  is  kept  for  its  milk,  a  sheep 
that  is  kept  for  its  wool,  a  hen  that  is  kept  for  its  eggs,  an  ox 

*  Without  requiring  the  labor  of  man  when  once  started,  as  is  the  case  with  wine 
and  oil  presses,  in  which  case  the  beams,  once  put  on  grapes  or  olives,  force  the  fluids 
to  run  down  of  their  own  accord. 


28  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

that  is  kept  for  the  plough,  and  dates  that  are  put  up  for  the 
market,  are  prohibited  for  use  at  a  biblical  feast,"  according  to 
Rabh;  Samuel,  however,  said  it  was  permitted.  The  point  of 
their  differing  is  the  law  of  Mnktza,  in  which  R.  Jehudah  and 
R.  Simeon  differ.  (It  is  explained  farther  on  that,  according  to 
the  latter,  no  Muktza  exists.) 

A  disciple  in  'Harta  of  Argis*  decided  cases  according  to 
R.  Simeon's  teaching,  and  R.  Hamnunah  put  him  under  the 
ban.  But  have  we  not  adopted  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon  ? 
Yea,  but  'Harta  was  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Rabh,  and  he 
(the  disciple)  should  not  have  done  as  he  did  against  Rabha's 
teaching. 

MISHNA  VI. :  Meats,  onions,  and  eggs  shall  not  be  put  to 
roasting  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath,  unless  they  can  be  done  while 
it  is  yet  day. 

Bread  shall  not  be  put  in  the  oven  or  a  cake  upon  live  coals, 
unless  the  crust  can  be  formed  while  it  is  yet  day.  R.  Elazar 
says  it  is  enough  if  the  bottom  crust  is  formed.  The  Passover 
sacrifice  may  be  turned  around  in  the  oven  (on  Friday)  when 
it  is  getting  dark.  In  the  heating-house  of  (the  sanctuary) 
the  fire  was  fed  at  eventide.  The  fires  in  the  rural  districts 
may  be  fed  until  the  flames  envelop  the  greatest  part  (of 
the  fuel).  R.  Judha  says:  "  Where  coals  were  already  burn- 
ing more  fuel  may  be  added,  even  when  Sabbath  is  quite  near 
at  hand." 

GEMARA:  When  should  such  victuals  be  considered  done  ? 
Said  R.  Elazar  in  the  name  of  Rabh :  "  When  they  are  done  like 
the  victuals  of  Ben  Drostai."f  As  we  have  learned  in  a  Bo- 
raitha:  Hananiah  says  all  victuals  that  are  done  like  the  victuals 
of  Ben  Drostai  may  be  left  upon  the  hearth,  even  if  the  fire  in 
the  hearth  is  not  stirred  up  and  full  of  ashes, 

"  Bread  shall  not  be  put,'"  etc.  The  schoolmen  propounded 
a  question :  ("  Does  R.  Elazar  speak  of)  the  crust  that  is  formed 
near  the  wall  of  the  oven,  or  the  crust  formed  (on  the  side  of 
the  loaf,  that  is  turned)  to  the  fire  ? " 

Come  and  hear.  R.  Elazar  says:  "It  is  sufficient  if  the 
surface  is  crusted,  which  lies  close  to  the  wall  of  the  oven." 

*  Argis  was  the  man  who  built  the  city  of  'Harta  and  R.  Hamnunah  lived  in  that 
city.  The  cave  in  which  he  is  buried  is  still  in  existence  there.  So  I  have  found 
written  in  an  answer  of  a  Gaon.     (Rashi.) 

f  A  notorious  highwayman,  who  could  never  stay  in  one  place  long  enough  to  cook 
his  meals,  and  was  wont  to  do  only  the  third  part  of  cooking  they  required. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  39 

"  The  Passover  sacrifice  may  be  turned,"  etc.  Why  so  ?  Be- 
cause a  company  (when  preparing  a  sacrifice  in  the  temple)  is 
very  cautious. 

But  if  this  were  not  the  case,  would  it  not  be  allowed  ?  Has 
not  the  master  said :  A  (sacrificial)  kid  may  be  used,  well  done 
or  not  well  done  ?  Aye,  but  in  that  case  it  is  cut  in  pieces;  in 
our  case  it  could  not  be  cut  in  pieces.* 

The  fire  in  the  heating-house,"  etc.  Why  so  ?  Whence  is 
this  deduced  ?  Said  R.  Huna:  It  is  written  [Ex.  xxxv.  3]: 
'  Ye  shall  not  kindle  any  fire  throughout  your  habitations  upon 
the  Sabbath  day."  Your  habitations  excluded  the  sanctuary. 
R.  Hisda  opposed:  If  it  is  so,  then  they  may  do  so  on  Sab- 
bath itself;  therefore  he  explains  thus:  The  cited  verse  ex- 
cludes only  the  parts  of  the  members  which  are  already  upon 
the  altar,  and  the  reason  of  our  Mishna  is  because  priests  are 
very  careful. 

"  In  the  rural  districts,"  etc.  What  does  "  the  greatest 
part  "  mean  ?  According  to  Rabh :  "  The  greatest  part  of  each 
piece  "  ;  and  according  to  Samuel:  "  Until  no  more  small  wood 
is  needed  to  make  the  heap  burn."  R.  Hyya  taught  the  fol- 
lowing Boraitha  in  support  of  R.  Samuel:  "The  flame  should 
continue  rising  by  itself,  and  not  by  the  assistance  of  anything 
else. ' '  And  to  only  one  log  of  wood  ?  — until  the  fire  catches  most 
of  its  thickness;  and  according  to  others,  the  most  of  its  circum- 
ference, was  the  decision  of  Rabh.  Said  R.  Papa:  To  comply 
with  both  views  just  mentioned  it  is  right  that  the  fire  should 
catch  both,  the  most  of  its  thickness  and  the  greatest  part  of  its 
circumference.  However,  regarding  this  law  Tanaim  of  the  fol- 
lowing Boraitha  differ.  R.  Hyya  says:  Until  it  is  so  burned 
that  it  is  unfit  for  any  carpenter's  work.  R.  Judah  b.  Bathyra 
says:  Until  the  fire  catches  both  sides.  And  although  this  can- 
not be  substantiated  by  evidence  (from  Scripture),  there  is  a  hint 
of  this — viz.:  "  Both  ends  are  consumed  by  the  fire  and  the 
inside  is  scorched;  is  it  fit  for  any  work  ? "  [Ez.  xv.  4]. 

It  was  taught:  R.  Kahana  said:  Reeds,  if  they  are  tied 
together,  must  (have  enough  daytime  on  Friday)  to  burn  over 
half;  if  not  tied  together,  less  is  sufficient.  Granuvi  must  have 
enough  time  for  the  fire  to  catch  their  greater  part;  if  they  are 
put  in  a  fire-pot,  they  need  not.     R.  Joseph  taught  four  sub- 


*  Sec  Ex.  xii.  9,  46,  wliere  it  is  explicitly  ordained  that  the  pasclial  lamb  should 
not  be  dismembered,  and  no  bone  should  be  broken. 


30  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

stances  (used  as  fuel)  need  not  (have  time  until  the  fire  catches) 
the  greater  part — viz.  :  pitch,  sulphur,  cheese,  and  running  fats. 
In  a  Boraitha  it  was  taught  that  straw  and  (wood)  shavings 
belong  to  the  same  category.  R.  Johanan  said  that  the  same  is 
the  case  with  fuel  in  Babylon.  What  does  it  mean  ?  Accord- 
ing to  R.  Joseph  bast,  and  according  to  Rami  b.  Aba  branches. 


APPENDIX. 

[Explanatory  to  p.  8,  line  2  (Erubhin,  p.  25).] 

There  is  a  Boraitha  in  addition  to  the  last  Mishna  of  Chap. 
IX.,  ibid.,  p.  226,  as  follows:  "  More  than  this  said  R.  Jehudah: 
'  He  who  has  two  houses,  one  on  each  side  of  public  ground, 
may  add  to  each  a  beam  or  a  side  beam  (for  a  sign),  and  this 
allows  him  to  carry  things  from  one  house  into  the  other.'  To 
which  the  rabbis  answered  that  such  an  erubJi  does  not  suffice 
for  public  ground."  (The  reason  of  R.  Jehudah's  statement  is 
that  biblically  two  partitions  suffice  to  turn  premises  of  public 
ground  into  private  ground,  with  which  the  rabbis  do  not 
agree.)* 

*  This  Boraitha  was  omitted  in  Tract  Erubhin.  Here,  however,  to  render  the 
above-mentioned  passage  clearer  for  the  reader,  we  deem  it  necessary  to  translate  it. 


CHAPTER    II. 

REGULATIONS   CONCERNING    THE    SABBATH    AND    'haNUKAH    LIGHT. 

MISHNA  /.  :  What  shall  and  what  shall  not  be  used  for 
lighting;  (the  Sabbath  light)  ?  The  light  shall  not  be  made  with 
(wicks  of)  cedar  bast,  raw  flax,  silk  fibre,  weeds  growing  upon 
the  water,  and  ship-moss.*  Nor  shall  pitch,  wax,  cotton-seed 
oil,  oil  of  rejected  heave-offerings, f  fat  from  the  tail  of  a  sheep, 
and  tallow  be  used. 

Nahum  the  Modait  says  melted  tallow  maybe  used  for  light- 
ing; the  schoolmen,  however,  prohibit  melted  and  raw  tallow 
alike. 

GEMARA  :  Rabbin  and  Abayi  were  sitting  before  Rabbanah 
Ne'hemiah,  the  brother  of  the  Exilarch  (after  the  death  of  his 
brother  he  became  Exilarch  under  the  name  Ne'hemiah  the 
Second),  and  they  saw  that  he  was  dressed  in  a  mantle  of 
fieraSoi  {raw  silk).  Said  Rabbin  to  Abayi :  "This  is  called  in 
our  Mishna  khlakh.'' %  ^"^^  he  answered:  "  In  our  city  it  is 
called  Shira  Peranda  {feraudinis)."  The  same  (Rabbin  and 
Abayi)  happened  to  be  in  the  valley  of  Tamruritha,  and  they 
saw  a  kind  of  willow,  and  Rabbin  said  to  Abayi :  "  This  is  edan 
mentioned  in  our  Mishna";  and  he  rejoined:  "This  is  only 
common  wood;  how  could  a  wick  be  made  of  it  ?  "  He  peeled 
ofT  one  of  them  and  showed  him  a  kind  of  woolly  substance 
between  the  bark  and  the  stem. 

•  Moss  springing  up  on  the  hulk  or  boards  of  a  ship. 

f  The  text  reads  "  oil  for  burning,"  the  full  explanation  of  which  is  given  in  the 
Talmud  farther  on.  We  have  paraphrased  the  term  to  convey  the  sense  to  the 
Knglish  reader. 

X  The  terms  in  the  Mishna,  wiiii  which  it  must  not  be  lighted,  are  expressed  in  a 
mixture  of  Hebrew,  Creek,  and  Roman  names.  The  Gemara  then  discusses  what  is 
meant  by  the  names,  and,  probably,  some  of  the  Babylonian  Amoraim  did  not 
understand  Greek  or  Roman,  as  is  seen  from  the  fact  that  Rabbin  did  not  know 
of  the  name  itietaxa  when  he  saw  it  on  the  body  of  Ne'hemiah,  and  exclaimed  only, 
"This  is  meant  by  the  expression  khlakh  ";  and  Abayi  answered  in  broken  Roman, 
Pariimia.  We,  as  we  have  translated  the  names  into  English,  have  omitted  the 
whole  discussion  in  the  first  edition.  In  this  second  edition,  however,  we  are  dis- 
posed not  to  omit  at  least  the  historical  facts. 


32 


THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD.. 


The  rabbis  taught:  All  that  which  was  prohibited  for  the 
Sabbath  lamp  may  be  used  in  fires  that  are  kept  up  for  heat  or 
even  for  constant  light,  whether  (such  fires  are  built)  upon  the 
ground  or  in  the  hearth ;  as  the  materials  are  prohibited  only 
for  use  as  wicks  for  the  Sabbath  lamp. 

Rabba  said :  The  wicks  which  the  rabbis  forbade  the  use  of 
in  the  Sabbath  lamp  are  prohibited  because  they  give  a  flicker- 
ing light.  The  oily  substances  were  prohibited  because  they 
do  not  adhere  to  the  wick. 

Abayi  questioned  Rabba:  Would  it  be  permitted  to  mix  oil 
with  these  prohibited  fats  and  then  use  them  for  the  Sabbath 
lamp  ?  Or  is  even  that  prohibited  as  a  precaution  lest  one  use 
those  fats  without  the  addition  of  oil  ?  Rabba  answered:  It  is 
prohibited.     Why  so  ?     Because  they  do  not  give  a  right  light. 

Abayi  objected  to  him  from  the  following:  "  R.  Simeon  b. 
Gamaliel  said:  'In  my  father's  house  they  wound  the  wick 
around  a  nut  and  lighted  it  * ;  hence  you  see  that  it  may  be 
lighted."  Said  Rabba:  "  Instead  of  contradicting  me  with  the 
saying  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel,  support  my  view  with  the 
decision  of  the  first  Tana"  (of  our  Mishna).  This  would  not 
do,  as  the  record  of  an  act  is  incontrovertible.  Still  the  record 
of  the  master  remains  contradictory.  The  Mishna  is  not  com- 
plete, and  should  read  thus:  "  If  one  has  wound  a  thing  that 
may  be  used  (as  a  wick)  around  a  thing  that  may  not  be  used, 
he  is  not  permitted  to  light  it.  This  is  the  case  when  the  two 
(substances)  are  to  serve  the  purpose  of  a  wick,  but  if  the  pro- 
hibited substance  is  used  merely  to  support  the  permissible  (the 
combination)  is  allowed,  as  so  said  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel,  *  In 
my  father's  house,'  "  etc. 

But,  after  all,  it  is  not  so.  Did  not  R.  Beruna  teach  in  the 
name  of  Rabh :  To  melted  tallow  or  fish  fat  one  may  add  some 
oil  and  use  it  for  the  Sabbath  lamp  ?  These  substances  adhere 
to  the  wick  in  themselves.  But  the  rabbis  had  prohibited 
melted  tallow  or  fish  fat  as  a  precaution,  lest  (if  the  melted  sub- 
stance be  allowed)  one  use  it  raw  also  for  light.  Why  did  they 
not  enact  the  prohibition  to  use  these  substances  with  the  ad- 
mixture of  some  oil  as  a  precaution  lest  they  be  used  without 
the  admixture  of  oil  ?  This  itself  is  a  precautionary  measure; 
shall  we  enact  another  as  a  safeguard  to  it  ? 

R.  Huna  said:  The  wicks  and  fats  which  the  sages  have 
prohibited  for  the  Sabbath  lamp  cannot  be  used  for  the  'Hanu- 
kah  lamp  either  on  the  Sabbath  night  or  on  week  nights.     Said 


TRACT    SABBATH.  33 

Rabba:  The  reason  of  R.  Huna's  theory  is  because  he  holds 
that  if  the  ('Ilanukah  lamp)  is  extinguished  (by  accident)  it 
must  be  relighted,  and  also  that  its  light  may  be  used  to  work 
by.  R.  Hisda,  however,  maintains  that  it  can  be  fed  (with 
these  fats)  on  week  nights,  but  not  on  the  Sabbath  night.  B? 
cause  he  holds  that  if  it  is  extinguished,  one  is  not  in  duty 
bound  (to  light  it  again),  and  as  long  as  it  burns  it  may  be  used 
to  work  by. 

R.  Zcra  in  the  name  of  R.  Mathna,  according  to  others  in 
the  name  of  Rabh,  said :  The  wicks  and  fats  which  the  sages 
prohibited  for  the  Sabbath  lamp  may  be  used  for  the  'Hanukah 
lamp,  both  during  the  week  and  on  the  Sabbath  night.  Said 
R.  Jeremiah :  The  reason  of  Rabh's  decision  is  because  he  holds 
that  if  it  is  extinguished  he  need  not  relight  it,  and  its  light 
is  prohibited  to  be  used."  The  rabbis  declared  this  before 
Abayi,  in  the  name  of  R.  Jeremiah,  and  he  would  not  accept 
it ;  when  Rabbin  came  from  Palestine  he  declared  the  same 
before  Abayi  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan,  and  he  accepted  it  and 
said:  "  Had  I  been  worthy,  I  would  have  accepted  this  teaching 
before." 

It  is  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  "If  it  is  extinguished,  it  is 
not  needed  to  relight  it."  Is  this  not  contradicted  by  the  fol- 
lowing: "  The  proper  ordinance  is  for  (the  'Hanukah  light)  to 
last  from  sunset  until  footsteps  arc  no  longer  heard  in  the 
street  "  ?*  Does  this  not  mean  that  if  extinguished  it  must  be 
relighted  ?  Nay,  the  time  appointed  is  only  for  the  purpose  of 
determining  when  the  light  is  to  be  lit,  or  a  light  should  be 
made  which  will  last  for  the  appointed  time. 

"  Until  footsteps  are  no  longer  heard,"  etc.  Up  to  what 
time  is  this  ?  Said  Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Jo- 
hanan:  "  Up  to  the  time  when  the  steps  of  the  Tarmuditesf 
are  heard  no  more." 

The  rabbis  taught:  The  law  of  'Hanukah  demands  that 
every  man  should  light  one  lamp  for  himself  and  his  household. 
Those  who  seek  to  fulfil  it  well  have  a  lamp  lit  for  every  mem- 
ber of  the  household.  Those  who  seek  to  fulfil  the  law  in  the 
best  possible  manner  should  light  according  to  Beth  Shamai  the 
first  night  eight  flames,  and  every  following  night   one   flame 

*  The  ceasing  of  footsteps  in  Talmudical  language  implies  the  time  when  people 
have  already  retired. 

f  Vendors  of  shavings  and  small  wood,  which  are  bought  for  the  hearth-fire  in 
the  evening. 

VOL.    I. — 3. 


34 


THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 


less.  And  according  to  Beth  Hillel  the  reverse — the  first 
night  one  lamp,  and  be  increased  by  one  on  each  succeeding 
night.  Said  Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan: 
"  There  were  two  sages  in  Zidon  ;  one  did  according  to  the  de- 
cision of  Shamai's  school,  and  gave  the  reason  that  the  'Hanu- 
kah  lamp  is  to  be  lit  in  the  same  manner  as  the  sacrifices  of  the 
feast  were  offered,*  and  the  other  according  to  the  school  of 
Hillel,  with  the  reason  that  holy  actions  should  show  (emblem- 
ize)  increase  and  not  reduction. 

The  rabbis  taught:  It  is  a  merit  to  put  the  'Hanukah  lamp 
on  the  outside  door  of  the  house;  and  he  who  lives  in  an  attic 
puts  it  in  a  window  that  opens  into  the  street.  In  time  of 
danger,  however, f  it  is  sufificient  if  the  lights  are  on  the  table. 
Said  Rabha:  In  the  latter  case  another  light  is  required  to 
work  by;  but  if  there  is  a  hearth-fire  in  the  house,  it  is  not 
necessary.  However,  if  the  man  is  of  high  standing  (and  not 
in  the  habit  of  working  by  the  hearth-light)  he  must  have 
another  lamp. 

What  is  'Hanukah  ?  The  rabbis  taught:  "  On  the  twenty- 
fifth  day  of  Kislev  'Hanukah  commences  and  lasts  eight  days, 
on  which  lamenting  (in  commemoration  of  the  dead)  and  fast- 
ing are  prohibited.  When  the  Hellenists  entered  the  sanctuary, 
they  defiled  all  the  oil  that  was  found  there.  When  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  House  of  Asmoneans  prevailed  and  conquered 
them,  oil  was  sought  (to  feed  the  holy  lamp  in  the  sanctuary) 
and  only  one  vial  was  found  with  the  seal  of  the  high  priest 
intact.  The  vial  contained  sufficient  oil  for  one  day  only,  but 
a  miracle  occurred,  and  it  fed  the  holy  lamp  eight  days  in  suc- 
cession. These  eight  days  were  the  following  year  established 
as  days  of  good  cheer,  on  which  psalms  of  praise  and  acknowl- 
edgment (of  God's  wonders)  were  to  be  recited. 

R.  Kahana  said:  R.  Nathan  b.  Manyomi  in  the  name  of 
R.  Tanhum  lectured:  "  A  'Hanukah  lamp  becomes  disqualified 
if  it  is  put  higher  than  twenty  ells  (from  the  ground),  just  like 
a  Sukkah  (booth)  and  like  the  side  beam  of  an  alley." 

Rabba  said:  The  merit  of  the  'Hanukah  lamp  is  that  it  be 
put  within  a  span  of  the  house  door.  And  on  which  side  ?  R. 
A'ha  b.  Rabha  said  to  the  right,  R.  Samuel  of  Diphti  said  to 

*  The  sacrifices  of  the  Feast  of  Booths  were  decreased  in  number  each  succeeding 
day.     See  Numbers  xxix.  13,  17,  23,  25,  29,  32. 

f  Time  of  danger  is  used  here  to  designate  the  time  when  a  prohibitive  order 
against  lights  is  issued  by  the  local  government. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  35 

the  left  (of  the  entrance).  And  the  Halakha  prevails  that  it 
should  be  placed  to  the  left  of  the  entrance,  so  that  the  'Hanu- 
kah  light  be  on  one  side  and  the  Mezuzah  *  on  the  other  side  of 
the  door. 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  R.  Assi  said :  It  is  not  allowed 
to  count  money  by  the  'Hanukah  light.  When  this  was  cited 
before  Samuel,  he  said:  "  Is  there  any  holiness  in  the  light  ?" 
R.  Joseph  retorted:  Is  there  any  holiness  in  the  blood  of  an 
animal  ?  and  yet  have  we  not  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  It  is 
written:  "  Then  shall  pour  out  the  blood  .  .  .  and  cover 
it  "  .  .  .  [Lev.  xvii.  13^  From  this  we  infer  that  he  must 
cover  it  with  the  same  hand  it  was  shed  with,  but  not  with  his 
foot,  in  order  that  the  fulfilment  of  the  commandment  should  not 
be  treated  with  lack  of  reverence.  In  our  case,  too,  the  light  must 
not  be  used  for  anything,  in  order  that  the  compliance  with  an 
ordinance  should  not  evince  a  lack  of  reverence. 

R.  Joshua  b.  Levi  was  questioned:  May  the  fruits,  hung  up 
in  the  Sukkah  for  ornamentation,  be  used  during  the  seven  days 
of  the  feast  ?  He  answered:  Even  to  the  'Hanukah  light  a  law 
was  passed  prohibiting  the  counting  of  money.  Said  R.  Joseph: 
"  Lord  of  Abraham !  "  Here  he  connected  a  law  that  was  en- 
acted (by  the  ancient  masters)  with  one  that  was  not  discussed 
by  them.  The  law  concerning  the  Sukkah  was  biblical,  that 
concerning  'Hanukah  was  not  biblical  but  rabbinical.  There- 
fore said  R.  Joseph :  The  precedent  of  all  these  cases  is  the  law 
concerning  the  blood  (which  was  cited  above). 

It  was  taught:  Rabh  said:  It  is  not  allowed  to  light  one 
'Hanukah  light  with  the  other;  Samuel  permits  this.  Rabh 
prohibited  Tzitzith  (show-threads)  to  be  taken  out  of  one  gar- 
ment and  put  into  another;  Samuel  permits  also  this.  He  also 
said  that  the  Halakha  does  not  prevail  in  accordance  with  R. 
Simeon  regarding  dragging  across  the  floor  (which  will  be  ex- 
plained farther  on);  and  Samuel  maintains  it  does.f 

Said  Abayi :  "  My  master  followed  the  decisions  of  Rabh  in 
all  questions  except  the  three  mentioned  above,  which  he 
decided  according  to  Samuel." 


*  "  Mezuzah,"  door-post,  teclinical  name  for  the  writing  which  was  to  be  placed 
on  the  door-post  by  tlie  command  of  Deut.  vi.  g  and  elsewhere.  The  rahbis  decreed 
tliat  this  was  to  be  placed  to  the  right  of  the  entrance. 

f  The  different  contentions  given  above  may  seem  somewhat  out  of  place  ;  how- 
ever, they  are  cited  merely  to  show  the  differences  of  opinion  existing  among  the 
different  schools  and  sages. 


36  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

One  of  the  rabbis  in  the  presence  of  R.  Ada  b.  Ahba  said: 
"  Rabh's  reason  for  prohibiting  these  acts  was  to  prevent  irrev- 
erence in  the  compliance  with  the  law."  Said  R.  Ada  to  the 
scholars  present:  "  Hear  him  not;  Rabh's  reason  was  to  pre- 
vent stinginess  in  the  fulfilment  of  laws."  And  what  is  the 
difference  between  the  two  ?  It  is  in  the  lighting  of  one  'Hanu- 
kah  lamp  with  another.  He  who  says  that  irreverence  was  the 
reason  cannot  prohibit  this ;  but  he  who  holds  stinginess  to  be 
the  reason,  prohibits  even  this  rightfully. 

How  is  this  question  to  be  decided  ?  Said  R.  Huna  b.  R. 
Joshua:  "  Let  us  see  whether  the  act  of  lighting  the  lamp  con- 
stitutes merit,  or  whether  it  is  the  act  of  putting  it  in  its  proper 
place";  this  question  having  been  already  propounded  by  the 
schoolmen  (the  answer,  when  given,  will  serve  for  the  above 
also). 

Come  then  and  hear  the  following;  R.  Joshua  b.  Levi  says: 
"  A  lantern  (that  was  lit  for  'Hanukah  on  Friday  night)  and 
kept  burning  the  whole  following  day  must,  at  the  close  of  the 
Sabbath,  be  extinguished  and  then  relighted."  Now  if  we  say 
that  the  lighting  constitutes  compliance  with  the  command- 
ment, this  teaching  is  correct;  but  if  we  say  that  the  placing  of 
the  lamp  in  its  proper  place  constitutes  the  merit,  it  should  be 
said:  "  It  should  be  extinguished,  raised  up,  put  in  its  proper 
place,  and  then  lit."  And  also,  since  we  pronounce  the  bene- 
diction, "  Blessed  art  Thou,  etc.,  who  hast  commanded  us  to 
light  the  'Hanukah  lamp,"  it  becomes  clearly  apparent  the 
lighting  constitutes  compliance.  And  so  it  is.  Now  that  we 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  act  of  lighting  constitutes  the 
merit,  it  is  understood  that  if  this  was  done  by  a  deaf-mute,  an 
idiot,  or  a  minor,  the  act  is  not  valid;  a  woman,  however,  may 
surely  light  it,  as  R.  Joshua  b.  Levi  said:  "  Women  are  in  duty 
bound  to  light  the  'Hanukah  lamp,  for  they  were  included  in 
miracle." 

R.  Shesheth  said :  A  guest  (at  a  stranger's  house)  is  obliged 
to  light  the  'Hanukah  lamp.  Said  R.  Zera:  When  I  was  study- 
ing at  the  school  of  Rabh,  I  contributed  my  share  towards  main- 
taining and  lighting  the  lamp  with  mine  host.  Since  I  am  mar- 
ried, I  say,  I  surely  need  not  light  it  now,  for  it  is  lit  for  me  at 
my  house. 

R.  Joshua  b.  Levi  said:  "  All  fats  are  good  for  the  'Hanukah 
lamp,  but  olive  oil  is  the  best. ' '  Abayi  said  :  ' '  My  master  always 
sought  for  poppy-seed  oil,  because,  said  he,  it  burns  slowly  (and 


TRACT    SABBATH.  37 

the  light  lasts  longer),  but  when  lie  heard  the  saying  of  R.  Joshua 
b.  Levi,  he  sought  for  olive  oil,  for  that  gives  a  clearer  light." 

Hyya  b.  Ashi  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said:  He  who  lights  the 
'Hanukah  lamp  must  pronounce  a  benediction.  R.  Jeremiah 
said :  He  who  perceives  it  must  pronounce  a  benediction.  R, 
Jchudah  said:  He  who  perceives  a  'Hanukah  lamp  on  the  first 
day  must  pronounce  two  benedictions,  and  the  one  that  lights 
it  on  the  first  day,  three;*  after  the  first  day,  the  one  that 
lights  it  must  pronounce  two  benedictions  and  the  one  that 
perceives  it  one. 

What  benediction  would  he  omit  ?  The  benediction  of  time. 
But  why  not  omit  the  benediction  of  the  miracle  ?  Because  the 
miracle  was  continued  every  day  (of  the  eight).  And  what  is 
the  (special)  benediction  ?  "  Blessed  be,  etc.,  who  hallowed  us 
with  His  commands  and  ordained  that  we  shall  light  the  'Hanu- 
kah lamp."  But  where  did  He  ordain  this?  Said  R.  Avya: 
(This  command  is  included  in)  "  Thou  shalt  not  depart,"  etc. 
[Deut.  xvii.  1 1].  R.  Nehemiah,  however,  from  the  following 
said:  "  Ask  thy  father  and  he  will  tell  thee;  thine  elders,  and 
they  will  inform  thee"  [ibid,  xxxii.  7]. 

R.  Huna  said:  A  house  that  has  two  doors  must  have  two 
lamps.  Said  Rabha:  This  is  only  in  case  when  the  two  doors 
are  in  two  different  sides  of  the  house;  but  if  they  both  open  on 
the  same  side  it  is  not  necessary.  Why  so  ?  Because  the  towns- 
men may  pass  by  the  side  which  has  no  lamp  and  suspect  the 
owner  of  the  house  of  not  having  lit  any  at  all.  And  where  is 
it  taken  from  that  one  must  endeavor  to  avoid  suspicion  ?  From 
a  Tosephtha  in  Pcah,  Chap.  I.,  which  states  plainly  that  every 
one  must  do  so. 

R.  Isaac  b.  Rediphah  in  the  name  of  R.  Huna  said:  "  A  lamp 
with  two  mouths  (so  that  two  wicks  can  be  lit  in  it)  is  sufficient 
for  two  men." 

Rabha  said:  If  one  has  filled  a  dish  with  oil,  put  wicks  all 
around  the  brim,  and  covered  it  with  a  vessel  (so  that  each  wick 
yields  a  separate  flame),  it  is  sufficient  for  many  persons;  but  if 
he  has  not  covered  it,  he  makes  it  appear  as  one  flame  of  fire, 
and  it  is  not  valid,  even  for  one  person. 

The  same  said  again  :  If  one  (possessing  only  means  enough 

*  The  three  benedictions  here  referred  to  are  :  ist,  for  the  privilege  of  lighting  the 
'Hanukah  lamp  ;  2d,  for  the  miracle  which  the  lamp  commemorates  ;  and  3d,  for  the 
continuance  of  life  until  the  season  of  'Hanukah.  The  second  benediction  is  techni- 
cally designated  as  that  of  the  "  miracle  "  and  the  third  as  that  of  "  time  " 


91931 


3$  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

to  light  one  lamp)  must  choose  between  using  this  light  for  a 
house-light*  (on  Friday  night)  or  a  'Hanukah  light,  he  should 
use  it  for  a  house-light  in  order  to  preserve  his  domestic  peace. 
If,  again,  his  choice  must  be  between  (purchasing)  the  house- 
light  and  (the  wine  necessary  for  the  celebration)  of  the  holiness 
of  Sabbath,  the  house-light  is  to  be  preferred  and  for  the  same 
reason;  however,  it  is  doubtful  to  me  what  must  be  chosen 
between  the  'Hanukah  light  and  the  goblet  for  qiddush.  When 
one  cannot  afford  both,  which  must  he  prefer  ?"  "Is  the  lat- 
ter to  be  preferred  because  it  is  of  regular  occurrence,!  or  is  the 
'Hanukah  light  preferable,  in  order  to  proclaim  the  miracle 
(which  it  commemorates)?"  After  deliberating  he  decided 
himself  that  the  proclaiming  of  the  miracle  has  the  preference. 

R.  Huna  said:  He  who  makes  a  practice  of  lighting  many 
lamps  (which  the  law  requires  for  festive  occasions)  will  be 
rewarded  with  scholarly  sons.  He  who  is  particular  about  his 
Mezuzah  will  be  blessed  with  a  fine  dwelling.  He  who  is  par- 
ticular about  his  show-threads  (Tzitziths)  will  be  blessed  with 
fine  garments.  He  who  is  particular  to  pronounce  the  benedic- 
tion of  Sabbath  over  a  goblet  of  wine  shall  live  to  have  his  cellar 
well  stocked. 

R.  Huna  w^as  wont  to  pass  by  the  house  of  R.  Abbin,  the 
carpenter.  He  noticed  that  the  latter  lit  a  great  many  lamps 
on  the  Sabbath  night.  Said  he:  "Two  great  men  will  come 
forth  from  this  house."  And  they  were  R.  Jidi  and  R.  Hyya 
b.  Abhin. 

R.  Hisda  was  wont  to  pass  by  the  house  of  the  master  (father 
or  father-in-law)  of  R.  Shezbi;  he  noticed  many  lights  every 
Sabbath.  Said  he:  "A  great  man  will  come  forth  from  this 
house."     This  great  man  was  R.  Shezbi. 

The  wife  of  R.  Joseph  was  accustomed  to  light  her  (Sab- 
bath) lamp  late.  Said  he  unto  her:  There  is  a  Boraitha:  It 
is  written:  "  The  pillar  of  cloud  did  not  depart  by  day  nor  the 

*  "  The  light  for  a  house-light."  The  text  does  not  specify  on  what  night,  but 
Rashi's  commentary  adds  Friday  night,  i.e.,  Sabbath  eve.  In  our  opinion  that  is  not 
the  intent  of  Rashi  ;  for  even  on  workdays  the  light  used  by  the  household  should 
have  preference.  Proof  is  :  the  reason  given  is  for  the  sake  of  domestic  peace  ;  were 
it  only  to  apply  to  Sabbath  eve,  the  reason  given  would  have  been  in  honor  of  the 
Sabbath. 

f  In  all  the  ordinances  to  be  observed,  the  rabbis  have  adopted  the  rule  that  if 
the  choice  stands  between  one  that  recurs  at  short  intervals  and  one  that  occurs  more 
seldom,  the  former  is  always  to  be  preferred.  ("  Tadir,  vesheaino  tadir,  tadir 
kodom.") 


TRACT    SABBATH.  39 

pillar  of  fire  by  night  "  [Ex,  xiii.  22].  From  this  we  infer  that 
the  two  pillars  always  closely  followed  each  other.  She  then 
wanted  to  light  up  too  early.  Said  a  certain  old  man  to  her: 
"  There  is  another  Boraitha,  however,  that  (^whatever  is  to  be 
done)  should  be  done  neither  too  early  nor  too  late." 

Rabha  said:  "  He  who  loves  scholars,  will  have  sons  that 
are  scholars;  he  who  respects  them,  will  have  scholarly  sons-in- 
law;  he  who  fears  scholars,  will  become  a  scholar  himself,  and 
if  he  is  not  fit  for  this,  his  words  will  be  respected  like  those  of 
an  ordained  scholar." 

Oil  of  rejected  heave-offer iu^,"  etc.  What  is  that  ?  Said 
Rabba:  It  means  oil  of  heave-offering  which  became  defiled.  It 
is  called  oil  for  burning,  because  it  must  be  destroyed  in  fire, 
and  the  Mishna  speaks  here  of  a  Friday  that  happens  to  fall  on 
a  feast  day,  and  the  prohibition  to  light  (the  Sabbath  lamp) 
with  it  is  because  consecrated  things  that  have  been  defiled 
must  not  be  burned  on  a  feast  day.  Said  R.  Hanina  of  Sora: 
"  This  should  be  corrected  in  our  Mishna:  Why  shall  one  not 
make  a  light  with  the  defiled  oil  ?  Because  defiled  things  must 
not  be  burned  on  a  feast  day.  And  so  also  we  have  learned  in 
a  Boraitha:  All  material  which  must  not  be  used  for  lighting  on 
the  Sabbath,  may  be  lit  on  a  feast  day,  save  the  oil  for  burning." 

The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question:  Should  the'Hanukah 
incident  be  mentioned  in  the  benediction  after  meals  ?  Shall 
we  assume  that  because  it  is  rabbinical  it  is  unnecessary  ?  or, 
for  the  sake  of  the  proclamation  of  the  miracle,  it  should  ?  Said 
Rabba  in  the  name  of  R.  S'haura,  quoting  R.  Huna:  "  It  is  not 
necessary;  however,  if  one  wishes  to  do  it,  he  should  incorpo- 
rate it  in  the  thanksgiving  part." 

R.  Hunah  b.  Jehudah  visited  the  house  of  Rabha.  He  was 
about  to  mention  it  in  (the  prayer  part  under  the  heading  of) 
"  the  One  who  builds  up  Jerusalem."  Said  R.  Shesheth  :  Nay; 
it  should  be  mentioned  in  the  thanksgiving  part  of  the  benedic- 
tion after  the  meal,  as  it  is  mentioned  in  the  same  part  in  the 
prayer  of  the  eighteen  benedictions.* 

The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question:  Should  the  New- 
Moon  day  be  mentioned  in  the  benediction  after  meals  ?  Shall 
we  assume  that  the  New-Moon  day  is  more  important  than 
'Hanukah  because  its  observation  is  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures. 

*  The  principal  dements  of  all  Hebrew  prayers  are  :  ist,  Shebhah,  i.e.,  praise; 
2d,  Hodayah,  i.e.,  thanksgiving  ;  3d,  Tephiiah,  i.e.,  prayer  ;  and  4th,  Ta'hanun,  i.e., 
propitiation. 


40  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

or  need  it  not  be  mentioned  because  manual  labor  is  not  pro- 
hibited on  that  day?  Rabh  maintains  it  may;  R.  Hanina 
maintains  it  may  not.  Said  R.  Zerika:  "  Hold  to  Rabh's  opin- 
ion, for  R.  Oshia  holds  to  the  same;  as  R.  Oshia  taught:  On 
the  days  on  which  additional  sacrifices  (Musaph)  are  offered  in 
the  sanctuary,  like  New-Moon  days  and  the  middle  days  of  a 
feast,  one  must  at  evening,  morning,  and  afternoon  services 
recite  the  regular  eighteen  benedictions  and  insert  in  the  thanks- 
giving part  of  the  day's  service  a  passage  referring  to  the  sub- 
ject of  the  day.  And  if  he  has  failed  to  do  so,  he  should  be 
made  to  repeat  them ;  however,  no  benediction  over  a  goblet  of 
wine,  though  a  remembrance  of  their  significance  must  be  made 
in  the  prayer  after  meals.  On  days  requiring  no  additional  sac- 
rifice, like  the  first  Monday,  Thursday  and  Monday  (after  a  bibli- 
cal feast),  fast  days,  and  the  days  (devoted  to  prayer  by)  com- 
moners,* one  must  recite  the  eighteen  benedictions  at  evening, 
morning,  and  afternoon  services,  and  insert  a  paragraph  refer- 
ring to  the  subject  of  the  day  in  the  prayer  division ;  and  if  he 
forgot  the  latter  he  need  not  repeat  them,  nor  any  remembrance 
of  them  in  the  benediction  after  meals.  The  Halakha,  however, 
does  not  prevail  with  all  that  was  said  above.  It  remains  as 
decreed  by  R.  Joshua  b.  Levi:  If  the  Day  of  Atonement  hap- 
pens to  fall  on  a  Sabbath  day,  mention  of  the  Sabbath  must  be 
made  even  in  the  Neilah  prayer  (the  last  of  the  four  different 
prayers  of  the  Day  of  Atonement).  Why  so  ?  Because  the 
Sabbath  and  the  Day  of  Atonement  are  now  one,  and  four 
prayers  are  indispensable  to  the  services  of  the  day. 

MISHNA  //. :  The  lamp  used  on  a  (biblical)  feast-night 
shall  not  be  fed  with  oil  of  rejected  heave-offerings.  R.  Ishmael 
said:  The  Sabbath  lamp  shall  not  be  fed  with  tar,  out  of  honor 
for  the  Sabbath.  The  sages,  however,  allow  all  fatty  substances 
for  this  purpose:  poppy-seed  oil,  nut  oil,  fish  oil,  radish  oil, 
wild-gourd  oil,  tar,  and  naphtha.  R.  Tarphin  said :  It  shall  be 
lighted  with  nothing  but  olive  oil. 

GEMARA :"  R.  Ishmael  said,"  etc.  Why  so  ?  Said  Rabha: 
Because  it  emits  a  bad  odor  (and  the  Tana  prohibits  it)  as  a  pre- 

*  A  division  of  the  people  had  always  to  be  present  at  the  temple  to  witness  the 
services.  The  men  of  such  a  division  were  called  "  commoners  "  because  there  was 
a  special  place  assigned  to  them  in  the  temple.  All  of  them  not  being  able  to  attend, 
they  sent  their  delegates  to  represent  them,  but  they  assembled  in  their  various  cities 
and  villages  to  perform  their  devotion.  The  days  on  which  this  was  done  were  desig- 
nated as  those  of  "commoners" — "  Ma'amadoth."    See  Mishna,  Ta'anith. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  41 

caution,  lest  one  light  it  and  leave  the  house.  Said  Abayi:  Let 
him  go  (what  harm  is  there  in  that?).  Rejoined  Rabha:  Be- 
cause I  hold  that  the  Sabbath  light  is  a  duty,  as  R.  Na'lunan  b. 
R.  Zabda  or  b.  Rabha  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh.  The  (enjoy- 
ment of)  Sabbatli  light  is  an  obligation.  The  washing  of  hands 
and  feet  in  warm  water  toward  evening  (on  Friday)  is  optional. 
And  I  say  it  is  a  meritorious  act.  Why  so  ?  Because  R.  Jehudah 
said  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  "  It  was  the  custom  of  R.  Jehudah 
bar  Ilayi  to  bathe  his  face,  hands,  and  feet  in  warm  water,  that 
was  brought  to  him  in  a  trough  every  Friday  toward  evening; 
after  that  he  wrapped  himself  in  a  pallium  with  Tzitzith  (show- 
threads)  and  thus  assumed  an  angelic  appearance." 

It  is  written:  "  My  soul  was  deprived  of  peace"  [Lam.  iii. 
17].  What  does  this  mean  ?  Said  R.  Abuhu  :  It  means  (being 
deprived  of  the  pleasure  of)  lighting  the  Sabbath  lamp.  "  I 
forgot  the  good"  [ibid.].  What  does  this  mean?  Said  R. 
Jeremiah:  This  refers  to  (the  deprivation  of)  a  bath.  R.  Johanan, 
however,  said :  It  refers  to  the  washing  of  hands  and  feet  with 
warm  water.  R.  Isaac  of  Naph'ha  said:  It  refers  to  a  good  bed 
and  comfortable  bedding.  R.  Aba  said  :  It  refers  to  an  arranged 
bed  and  an  elegantly  robed  wife  for  scholarly  men. 

The  rabbis  taught:  "Who  may  consider  himself  rich?" 
One  who  enjoys  his  riches,  is  the  opinion  of  R.  Meir.  R.  Tar- 
phon  says:  He  who  has  a  hundred  fields,  a  hundred  vineyards, 
and  a  hundred  slaves  at  work  in  them.  R.  Aqiba  said:  He  who 
has  a  wife  adorned  with  good  virtues.  R.  Jose  said  :  He  who 
has  a  place  for  man's  necessity  in  his  house."* 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar  said : 
"  The  Sabbath  lamp  shall  not  be  fed  with  aromatic  balsam." 
Why  so  ?  Rabba  said  :  Because  it  yields  a  fine  fragrance,  it  was 
feared  lest  one  use  it  (taking  it  out  while  the  lamp  is  burning). 
Said  Abayi  to  him:  "  Why  does  not  the  master  say  because  it 
is  volatile  ?"  Aye,  he  means  this  and  the  other  also;  the  bal- 
sam is  prohibited  because  it  is  volatile,  and  also  for  fear  lest  it 
be  used. 

There  was  a  mother-in-law  who  hated  her  son's  wife,  and  told 
her  to  perfume  herself  with  aromatic  oil.  When  the  daughter- 
in-law  had  done  this,  she  ordered  her  to  go  and  light  the  candle. 
While  complying  with  this  order,  she  caught  fire  and  was  burned. 

The  rabbis  taught :    A  lamp  shall  not  be  fed  with  defiled 

*  Toilet  rooms  were  not  in  vogue  at  that  time,  and  for  their  necessity  they  had  to 
go  far  out  into  the  field  or  forest. 


42  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

"  Tebhel  "  ^  even  on  week  days,  and  the  less  so  on  the  Sab- 
bath. In  a  similar  manner,  white  naphtha  shall  not  be  used  to 
feed  a  lamp  with  on  week  days,  much  less  on  Sabbath,  because 
it  is  volatile. 

In  the  Boraitha  it  was  said  that  aromatic  balsam  shall  not  be 
used ;  so  also  did  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar  teach :  Aromatic  balsam 
is  nothing  but  resin,  that  comes  forth  from  aromatic  trees. 

R.  Ishmael  said:  The  (Sabbath)  lamp  shall  not  be  fed  with 
anything  that  comes  from  the  trunk  of  a  tree.  R.  Ishmael  b. 
Beroqa  said :  It  shall  be  lighted  only  with  such  substances  as 
come  from  fruit.  R.  Tarphon,  however,  said:  It  shall  be  fed 
only  with  olive  oil.  R.  Johanan  b.  Nuri  then  arose  and  said: 
"  What  shall  the  people  of  Babylonia  do,  who  have  nothing  but 
poppy-seed  oil  ?  What  shall  the  people  of  Media  do,  who  have 
nothing  but  nut  oil  ?  What  shall  the  people  of  Alexandria  do, 
who  have  nothing  but  radish  oil  ?  and  what  shall  the  people  of 
Cappadocia  do,  who  have  no  oil  of  any  kind,  nothing  but  tar  ?  " 
Nay;  we  have  no  choice  but  to  accept  the  decree  of  the  masters 
as  to  substances  which  should  not  be  used.  Even  fish  oil  and 
resin  maybe  used.  R.  Simeon  Shezori  said:  Oil  of  wild  gourds 
and  naphtha  may  be  used.  Symmachos  said:  No  animal  fat  save 
fish  oil  may  be  used. 

MISHNA  ///. :  No  substance  that  comes  from  a  tree  shall 
be  used  (as  a  wick)  save  flax.  In  like  manner  no  substance  that 
comes  from  a  tree  becomes  defiled  when  serving  as  a  tent  (in 
which  a  dead  body  lies)  save  flax. 

GEMARA:  Whence  do  we  know  that  flax  is  called  a  tree  ? 
Said  Mar  Zutra:  From  what  is  written:  "  She  took  them  up  to 
the  roof,  and  hid  them  in  the  flax  trees  "  [Josh.  ii.  6]. 

"  No  substance,  etc.,  save  flax.''  Whence  is  this  deduced  ? 
Said  R.  Elazar:  From  the  analogy  of  expressions  "  tent,"  which 
is  mentioned  in  the  case  of  the  tabernacle,  and  in  the  case  of 
death  [Ex.  xl.  19  and  Numb.  xix.  14].  As  the  tent  of  the 
tabernacle  was  made  only  of  flax,  so  also  in  our  case,  if  a  tent 
is  made  of  flax  only,  it  is  also  called  a  tent,  and  is  liable  to 
become  defiled. 

MISHNA /F.:  A  piece  of  cloth  that  was  rolled  together, 
but  not  singed,  said  R.  Eliezer,  becomes  defiled  (when  it  is  in 
the  same  tent  with  a  dead  body),  and  shall  not  be  used  (as  a 


*  "  Tebhel  "  is  the  desigfnation  of  the  produce  of  the  field  and  the  garden  from 
which  the  Levitical  gifts  or  tithes  were  not  separated. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  43 

wick)  for  Sabbath.  R.  Aqiba,  however,  said:  It  remains  pure 
and  may  be  used, 

GEMARA:  What  is  the  point  of  their  differing?  Said 
R.  Elazar  in  the  name  of  R.  Oshia,  and  so  also  said  R.  Ada  b. 
Ahba:  The  piece  of  cloth  in  question  is  exactly  three  fingers 
square,  and  the  lighting  is  to  be  done  on  a  feast  day,  which 
happens  on  a  Friday.  All  agree  with  tlie  opinion  of  R.  Jehudah, 
who  said  that  (on  a  feast  day)  fire  may  be  made  with  good  cloth 
(or  vessels),  but  not  with  such  as  have  been  spoiled  (the  same 
day).  Again,  all  agree  with  the  opinion  of  Ula,  who  said  that 
the  lighting  must  be  on  the  largest  part  of  the  wick  that  pro- 
trudes from  the  lamp.  Now  R.  Eliezer  holds  that  the  rolling 
up  (of  the  piece  of  cloth)  does  not  improve  the  position  {i.e.,  it 
is  still  an  object  to  Avhich  the  term  "  cloth  "  or  vessel  applies); 
as  soon  as  it  is  slightly  burned  it  becomes  spoiled  material;  fire, 
being  applied  further,  is  naturally  generated  with  spoiled  mate- 
rial (which  is  prohibited).  R.  Aqiba,  on  the  other  hand,  holds 
that  folding  docs  improve  the  condition  and  the  cloth  is  no 
longer  a  vessel ;  hence  he  puts  fire  to  a  simple  piece  of  wood 
(which  is  allowed). 

Rabha,  however,  said :  The  reason  of  R.  Eliezer's  (pro- 
hibition) is  that  the  Sabbath  lamp  is  not  allowed  to  be  lighted 
with  a  wick  or  rag  that  has  not  been  singed. 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said:  Fire  may  be  made 
(on  a  feast  day)  with  vessels,  but  not  with  broken  vessels.  So 
is  the  decree  of  R.  Jehudah.  R.  Simeon  permits  it.  Fire  may 
be  made  with  dates,  but  after  having  eaten  them  fire  is  not  to 
be  fed  with  their  granum.  A  fire  may  be  made  with  nuts,  but 
after  having  eaten  the  kernel  one  must  not  feed  the  fire  with  the 
shells,  according  to  R.  Jehudah;  R.  Simeon,  however,  permits 
both. 

The  statement  credited  to  Rabh  in  the  foregoing  paragraph 
was  not  made  by  him  plainly,  but  was  merely  implied  from  the 
following  act.  While  in  Palestine,  one  day  Rabh  was  eating 
dates  and  threw  the  pits  into  the  fireplace,  upon  which  R. 
Hyya  said  to  him:  "  Descendant  of  nobles,  on  a  (biblical)  feast 
day  this  would  be  prohibited !  "  Did  Rabh  accept  this  or  not  ? 
Come  and  hear.  While  in  Babylonia,  one  feast  day  Rabh  was 
eating  dates  and  threw  the  pits  to  some  cattle  (for  food). 
Must  we  not  assume  that  these  dates  belonged  to  the  class 
known  as"  Parsiassa  "  (a  ripe,  delicious,  free-stone  fruit),  and 
if    Rabh   fed  cattle  with  the  pits  of  this  fruit,  it  was  because 


44  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

they  may  be  used  for  fuel  also,  and  thus  the  statement  of  R. 
Hyya  is  contradicted  ?  Nay;  it  may  be  the  pits  that  fed  the 
cattle  by  Rabh  were  from  dates  known  as  "  Armiassa "  (an 
inferior  fruit,  the  pits  of  which  cling  to  the  meat).  The  pits 
of  this  latter  class  of  dates,  in  consequence  of  the  meat  still 
clinging  to  them,  are  regarded  as  dates  themselves,  and  may  be 
handled  on  the  Sabbath.  Hence  it  is  obvious  that  they  may 
also  be  fed  to  cattle,  and  Rabh  therefore  does  not  contradict 
R.  Hyya. 

MISHNA  v.:  One  shall  not  bore  a  hole  in  an  egg-shell,  fill 
it  with  oil,  and  put  it  upon  the  (Sabbath)  lamp,  so  that  the  oil 
drip  into  it;  and  even  if  it  was  a  clay  one.  R.  Jehudah  permits 
it.  If,  however,  the  potter  had  attached  it  to  the  lamp  when 
he  made  it,  it  is  allowed  to  do  this,  for  (together  with  the  lamp) 
it  forms  one  vessel.  A  man  shall  not  fill  a  dish  with  oil,  put  it 
beside  the  lamp,  and  dip  the  (unlighted)  end  of  the  wick  into  it, 
in  order  that  it  should  draw.      R.  Jehudah  permits  also  this. 

GEMARA:  "  1/  the  potter  had  attached  it,''  etc.  A  Bo- 
raitha  in  addition  to  it  states:  If  he  himself  has  attached  it  with 
mortar  or  clay,  it  is  allowed.  Does  not  our  Mishna  say  "  the 
potter  "  (from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  if  the  owner  did  it, 
is  it  not  allowed  for  use)  ?  Nay;  "  the  potter"  means  in  the 
manner  of  the  potter. 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  R.  Jehudah  said:  "  Once  we 
kept  Sabbath  in  the  attic  of  Beth  Nitza  in  Lydda,  We  pro- 
cured an  egg-shell,  filled  it  with  oil,  and  placed  it  on  the  lamp. 
R.  Tarphon  and  the  aged  scholars  were  there,  and  they  made 
no  objection  to  our  action."  They  answered  him  :  "  Wilt  thou 
prove  by  this  (that  this  is  allowed)  ?  Beth  Nitza  is  quite  a  dif- 
ferent case,  for  the  men  there  were  very  careful." 

Abhin  of  Ziphoris  dragged  a  chair  (along  the  floor  on  a  Sab- 
bath) in  the  marble  hall  in  the  presence  of  R.  Itz'hak  b.  Elazar. 
Said  the  latter:  "  If  I  should  be  silent  toward  thee  (although 
this  floor  being  marble,  no  depression  can  be  made  by  the  chair, 
and  thou  art  not  guilty  of  wrongdoing)  as  the  colleagues  were 
silent  toward  R.  Jehudah,  my  silence  might  be  misconstrued 
(and  people  might  think  that  this  can  be  done  on  any  floor; 
therefore  I  say  that)  this  is  prohibited  in  the  marble  hall  as  a 
precautionary  measure,  lest  one  do  it  in  any  other  hall."  The 
head  man  of  the  assembly  room  of  Bazra  dragged  a  chair  in  the 
presence  of  Jeremiah  the  Great.  Said  the  latter  to  him:  "  Ac- 
cording to  whose  decision  dost  thou  this  ? "     "  According  to  R. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  45 

Simeon."  "  R.  Simeon,  however,  allowed  large  things  only 
(to  be  dragged)  if  they  could  not  be  lifted ;  but  we  have  never 
heard  from  him  that  he  would  allow  this  also  with  small  ones  ? " 
This  teaching,  however,  differs  with  Ulla's  theory,  who  says  the 
dispute  was  only  concerning  small  things,  for  as  to  large  ones 
there  was  no  objection  from  any  one. 

MISHNA  VL  :  If  one  extinguishes  a  lamp  because  he  is 
afraid  of  the  officers  of  the  government,*  or  of  robbers,  or  of  an 
evil  spirit, t  or  in  order  that  a  sick  person  may  be  able  to  sleep, 
he  is  free.  If  he  does  this,  however,  to  prevent  damage  to  the 
lamp,  or  to  save  the  oil  or  the  wick,  he  is  culpable.  R.  Jose 
declares  the  man  free  even  in  the  latter  cases,  excepting  (if  he 
extinguished  the  lamp  to  save  the  wick),  for  in  that  case  he 
caused  a  cinder  to  be  formed. 

GEMARA :  From  the  fact  that  the  second  part  of  the  Mishna 
declares  the  man  (who  had  extinguished  the  lamp  to  prevent 
damage,  etc.)  culpable,  it  is  evident  that  this  regulation  was 
made  by  R.  Jehudah.:};  Now,  how  is  the  first  part  to  be  under- 
stood ?  .If  it  speaks  of  a  sick  person,  whose  illness  is  danger- 
ous, it  should  not  say  (that  the  man  who  extinguishes  the  lamp 
to  afford  him  rest)  is  "  free,"  but  should  say  that  he  is  "  allowed 
to  do  it  "  (even  intentionally).  And  if  it  speaks  of  one  whose 
illness  is  not  dangerous,  (the  one  who  extinguished  the  lamp  for 
him)  ought  to  be  declared  in  duty  bound  to  bring  a  sin-offering  ? 
Of  a  verity,  the  Tana  speaks  of  a  case  of  dangerous  illness,  and 
should  have  said  "  it  is  allowed  to  do  so,"  but  he  used  the  term 
"  free"  merely  (for  the  sake  of  euphony),  because  in  the  latter 
part  (of  the  Mishna)  the  expression  "  culpable  "  was  necessary; 
therefore  he  taught  in  the  first  part  of  the  Mishna,  also  free. 
I^ut  have  we  not  learned,  R.  Oshia  said,  that  "  in  order  that 
a  sick  person  may  be  able  to  sleep,  one  should  not  extinguish 
(the  lamp  on  the  Sabbath);  and  if  he  did  so  he  is  not  held  cul- 
pable, though  it  is  not  allowed  (to  be  done  intentionally)"  ? 
The  teaching  of  R.  Oshia  refers  to  sickness  that  is  not  danger- 
ous, and  is  in  accord  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon. 

The  question,  "  Is  it  allowed  to  extinguish  a  lamp  for  the 

*  Like  the  Persians,  says  Kashi,  who  had  certain  nights  on  which  they  allowed 
no  lights  to  burn  anywhere  but  in  their  sacred  shrines. 

f  The  evil  spirit  here  referred  to  is  explained  by  the  commentators  to  mean  "mel- 
ancholia." 

^  The  inference  is  made  on  the  strength  of  a  rule  laid  down  by  R.  Jehudah  else- 
where, that  every  unintentional  breach  of  the  Sabbath,  which  is  made  not  out  of  per- 
sonal necessity  or  habit,  must  be  atoned  for  by  a  sin-oflering.     (Rashi.) 


46  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

sake  of  a  sick  person  on   the  Sabbath?"  was  propounded  to 
Tan'hum  of  Navi. 

He  began  thus:*  "  O  thou  Solomon!  Where  is  thy  wis- 
dom ?  Where  is  thy  folly  ?  Thy  words  contradict  not  only  the 
words  of  thy  father,  but  also  thine  own  utterance.  Thy  father 
David  said,  *  The  dead  do  not  praise  God  '  [Ps.  cxv.  17],  and 
thou  sayest, '  I  praise  the  dead  that  died  long  ago  '  [Eccl,  iv.  2], 
and  then  again,  '  A  living  dog  fareth  better  than  a  dead  lion  ' 
[ibid.  ix.  4].  [This  presents  no  difficulty.  That  which  David 
said,  '  The  dead  do  not  praise  God, '  means  this :  One  must  always 
occupy  himself  with  study  and  with  meritorious  acts  before  his 
death;  for  as  soon  as  he  dies  he  is  free  of  both,  and  the  Holy 
One,  blessed  be  He,  receives  no  more  praise  from  him.  And 
the  saying  of  Solomon,  '  I  praise  the  dead,'  etc.,  means:  When 
Israel  sinned  in  the  desert,  Moses  stood  up  before  the  Lord  and 
offered  many  prayers  and  propitiating  invocations;  but  he  re- 
ceived no  answer.  As  soon,  however,  as  he  said:  '  Remember 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Israel,  Thy  servants'  [Ex.  xxxii.  13],  he 
was  answered  forthwith.  Now  did  not  Solomon  say  well:  '  I 
praise  the  dead  that  have  died  long  ago  '  ?  In  another  way  (this 
can  be  explained  as  follows):  The  custom  is,  if  a  man  of  flesh 
and  blood  issues  a  decree,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  people  will 
comply  with  it  or  not.  If  they  comply  with  it  while  he  lives 
they  may  disregard  it  after  his  death.  Moses,  our  master,  on 
the  other  hand,  has  issued  many  decrees  and  established  many 
enactments,  which  stand  unshaken  forever  and  aye.  Now,  did 
not  Solomon  say  well:  '  I  praise  the  dead,'  etc.?  Another  ex- 
planation to  the  above  verse  may  refer  to  the  following  legend, 
which  was  told  by  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  It  is  writ- 
ten [Psalms,  Ixxxvi.  17]:  '  Display  on  me  a  sign  for  good,  that 
those  who  hate  me  may  see  it,  and  be  ashamed.'  So  said  David 
before  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He :  '  Lord  of  the  Universe, 
forgive  me  the  certain  sin  (with  Bath-Sheba',  II  Samuel,  xi. 
3).  And  the  Lord  said:  '  It  is  forgiven.'  He  prayed  again: 
'  Display  on  me  a  sign  to  make  it  known.'  And  the  Lord  said: 
'  This  will  not  be  done  while  you  are  alive,  but  it  will  be  made 
known  in  the  time  of  your  son  Solomon.'  After  Solomon  had 
built  the  Temple  and  was  about  to  enter  the  ark  into  the  Holy 
of  Holiness,  the  doors  shut.     Solomon  had  prayed  twenty-four 


*  This  apparently  far-fetched  introduction  to  an  answer  to  a  question  of  religious 
legalism  illustrates  most  beautifully  how  the  ethical  principle  predominated  in  the 
rabbinical  discussions. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  47 

prayers  with  song,  and  was  not  answered.  He  then  began 
[Psalms,  xxiv.  7]:  'Be  raised  wide  .  .  .  and  let  the  King 
of  Glory  enter! '  The  doors  then  ran  after  him  and  wanted  to 
swallow  him,  saying:  '  Who  is  the  King  of  Glory?'  And  ho 
said:  '  The  Lord  strong  and  mighty.'  lie  then  said:  [ibid.,  ibid. 
9,  10].  And  still  was  not  answered.  Then  he  said  [II  Chron. 
vi.  42]:  '  O  Lord  God!  .  .  .  remember  the  pious  deeds  of 
David  thy  servant  ' ;  he  was  answered  at  once,  and  the  faces  of 
his  enemies  became  as  black  as  the  outside  of  a  pot;  and. Israel 
and  all  the  people  were  then  certain  that  the  above-mentioned 
sin  was  forgiven  to  David,  Hence  did  not  Solomon  say  well: 
'  I  praise  the  dead,'  etc.?  And  this  is  what  is  written  [I  Kings, 
viii.  66]:  'On  the  eighth  day  .  .  .  and  they  went  unto 
their  tents  joyful,'  etc.]  And  as  to  the  above  question,*  I  say 
this:  A  lamp  is  called  '  Ner,'  and  the  soul  of  man  is  called 
'Ner.'t  Let  rather  the  Ner  which  man  has  made  (the  lamp) 
be  extinguished,  than  the  '  Ner  '  (the  soul)  which  belongs  to  the 
Holy  One,  blessed  is  He." 

It  was  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  The  sages  wanted  to  con- 
ceal the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  because  of  its  contradictory  say- 
ings. And  it  was  not  so  done,  because  it  begins  with  sound 
religious  teachings  and  ends  with  similar  teachings.  It  begins 
with  the  words:  "  What  profit  hath  man  by  all  his  toil  under 
the  sun?"  [Eccl.  i.  3].  Whereupon  the  school  of  R.  Janai 
said,  "  Under  the  sun"  there  is  no  profit,  but  there  surely  is 
"  beyond  \.\\Q.  sun."  And  it  ends  with  the  words:  "  The  conclu- 
sion of  the  matter  is,  Fear  God  and  observe  his  commands,  for 
this  is  all  (there  is)  for  man  "  [Eccl.  xii.  13].  What  does  it  mean? 
Said  R.  Elazar:  (It  means)  the  whole  world  was  created  only 
for  the  sake  of  his  fear  of  God.  R.  Aba  b.  Kahana  said:  The 
God-fearing  man  outweighs  (in  importance)  the  whole  world. 
Simeon  b.  Azai,  others  say  b.  Zoma,  said :  The  whole  world 
was  created  only  to  provide  him  with  assistance. 

"  I  praise  mirth  "  [Eccl.  viii.  15].  This  means  the  righteous 
man  rejoices  when  he  performs  a  meritorious  act.  "  And  of  joy, 
what  doth  thisdo  ?"  [Eccl.  ii.  2]  alludes  to  rejoicing  that  comes 
not  through  a  Heaven-pleasing  deed.  This  teaches  that  the 
divine  presence  (Shekhina)  comes  not  by  sadness,  by  indolence, 

*  The  libcr.ility  of  the  rabbinical  law  is  evinced  by  the  fact  that  it  regards  an  act 
done  for  the  sake  of  alleviating  sudcrings  on  the  Sabbath  day  not  wrongful.  Evcrj' 
comfort  may  and  should  be  provided  for  the  sick  on  the  Sabbath  day. 

t  "  Ner"  is  the  Hebrew  word  for  candle  ;  the  soul  is  the  candle  of  God. 


48  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

by  hilarity,  by  levity,  by  gossip,  or  by  senseless  talk,  but 
through  rejoicing  in  a  meritorious  deed;  as  it  is  written:  "  Now 
bring  me  a  minstrel;  and  when  the  minstrel  played,  the  power  of 
the  Lord  was  upon  him  "  [II  Kings,  iii.  15].  Rabba  said:  The 
same  (should  be  done)  in  order  to  enjoy  good  dreams.  R.  Jehu- 
dah  says:  The  same  (should  be  done)  to  predispose  one's  self 
for  legislative  work,  as  Rabba  did:  Before  commencing  to  ex- 
pound a  Halakha  he  introduced  it  with  a  simile  and  caused  the 
masters  to  become  joyful;  afterward,  he  sat  down  in  the  fear  of 
the  Lord  and  began  to  expound  the  Halakha. 

It  was  taught  that  in  the  same  time  they  also  wanted  to  con- 
ceal the  Book  of  Proverbs  on  account  of  its  contradictory  say. 
ings.  And  it  was  not  done,  because,  they  said:  "  Have  we  not 
scrutinized  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  and  found  the  meaning  (of 
its  contradictory  sayings)  ?  Let  us  then  search  deeply  here  (in 
the  Book  of  Proverbs)  also." 

Which  are  the  contradictory  sayings  ?  It  says:  "  Answer 
not  the  fool  according  to  his  folly"  [Prov.  xxvi.  4];  and  then 
again:  •"  Answer  the  fool  in  his  folly  "  [ibid.  v.  5].  Yet  this  is 
no  contradiction ;  the  latter  refers  to  a  subject  of  learning,  the 
former  saying  to  a  subject  of  indifferent  talk.  How  is  the  sub- 
ject of  learning  here  to  be  understood  ?  In  the  following  man- 
ner. R.  Gamaliel  lectured :  In  the  future,  woman  will  bear  a 
child  every  day,  for  thus  it  is  written:  "  She  conceived  and 
gave  birth  at  a  time"  [Jer.  xxxi.  7].  A  disciple  laughed  at 
this  and  said :  "  There  is  no  new  thing  under  the  sun  "  [Eccl.  i. 
9].  Said  R.  Gamaliel :  Come,  I  will  show  thee  such  a  thing  in 
the  world  ;  and  he  showed  him  a  hen.  The  same  rabbi  lectured  : 
In  the  future  trees  will  bear  every  day,  for  it  is  written:  "  It 
will  produce  branches  and  bear  fruit"  [Ezek,  xvii.  23].  "As 
branches  are  produced  for  every  day,  so  also  will  fruit  be 
brought  forth  every  day."  Again  the  disciple  laughed  and 
said:  "  There  is  no  new  thing  under  the  sun."  Said  the  master 
to  him:  "  Come,  I  will  show  thee  a  thing  of  this  kind  in  the 
world;  and  he  showed  him  a  caper  tree."  He  lectured  also: 
"  The  land  of  Israel  will  in  the  future  produce  ready  cakes  and 
garments,"  explaining  the  first  part  of  verse  16  of  Psalm  Ixxii. 
to  that  effect. 

The  disciple  again  laughed  at  him ;  but  he  showed  him  that 
ready  meats  are  produced  in  the  shape  of  mushrooms,  and  ready 
garments  grow  in  the  shape  of  many-colored  fibres  that  cover 
the  young  date  trees. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  49 

The  rabbis  taught :  A  man  should  always  be  as  modest  as 
Hillel,  and  not  as  impulsive  as  Shamai.  It  once  happened  that 
two  men  laid  a  wager  of  four  hundred  zuz,  which  would  be  won 
by  him  who  could  provoke  Hiilcl  to  anger,  but  lost  if  he  failed 
in  the  attempt.  This  happened  on  Friday,  while  the  sage  was 
bathing  his  head.  The  man  who  undertook  the  task  went  to 
Ilillel's  door  and  cried:  "  Who  is  Hiilcl  here  ?  Who  is  Hillel 
here?"*  The  rabbi  threw  a  mantle  over  his  shoulders  and 
went  out  to  meet  him.  "  What  desirest  thou,  my  son  ?"  he 
asked.  "  I  have  a  question  to  ask,"  the  man  replied.  "  Ask, 
my  son,  ask,"  said  the  rabbi.  "  Why  are  the  Babylonians 
round-headed  ?"  asked  the  man.  "  This  is  an  important  ques- 
tion, my  son.  The  reason  is  that  they  have  no  skilled  midwives 
in  Babylon,"  answered  Hillel.  An  hour  later  the  man  came 
again  calling:  "Who  is  Hillel  here?  Who  is  Hillel  here?" 
The  rabbi  came  out  again  and  said:  "  VVHiat  desirest  thou,  my 
son?"  "  I  have  a  question  to  ask,"  the  man  said.  "Ask, 
my  son,  ask,"  said  Hillel.  "  Why  have  the  Tarmudites  oval 
eyes?"  "  This  is  a  very  important  question,  my  son.  .  (The 
Tarmudites)  live  in  a  sandy  land  and  must  always  keep  their 
eyes  half  closed."  An  hour  later  the  man  came  again  in  his 
insolent  manner,  and  said  again  that  he  had  a  question  to  ask. 
Hillel  in  his  quiet  manner  again  encouraged  him.  "  Why  do 
the  Africans  have  large  feet  ?"  he  asked.  "  Because  they  live 
in  a  swampy  land,"  answered  Hillel.  "  I  have  many  more 
questions  to  ask,  but  I  am  afraid  lest  thou  get  angry,"  con- 
tinued the  man.  Hillel  wrapped  himself  in  his  mantle  and  sat 
down,  saying:  "  Ask,  my  son,  all  the  questions  thou  desirest." 
"  Art  thou  Hillel,  who  is  titled  a  prince  in  Israel  ?"  asked  the 
man.  "  Yes,  my  son,"  answered  the  rabbi.  "If  thou  art  the 
man,  may  there  not  be  many  like  thee  in  Israel  ? "  "  Why  so, 
my  son  ?"  "  Because  thou  makest  me  lose  four  hundred  zuz." 
Said  Hillel  to  him:  "Take  care  of  thy  temper.  A  Hillel  is 
worthy  that  twice  that  amount  be  lost  through  him;  a  Hillel 
must  not  get  excited." 

The  rabbis  taught.  A  Gentile  once  came  before  Shamai  and 
asked:  "  How  many  laws  have  you  ?"  "  Two  laws:  the  writ- 
ten and  the  oral  law,"  answered  Shamai.  "  I  believe  thee  as 
regards  the  written  law,  but  I  do  not  believe  thee  as  to  the  oral 

*  Hillel,  being  the  president  of  the  Sanhcdrin,  should  have  been  addressed  accord- 
ing to  his  rank,  but  by  addressing  him  thus,  it  seems,  the  man  thought  he  could  pro- 
voke  him  to  anger. 

VOL.   I. — 4. 


50  THE    BABYLONIAxM    TALMUD. 

law,"  said  the  Gentile.  "  I  will  be  converted  to  Judaism  on 
condition  that  thou  teach  me  the  written  law."  Shamai  re- 
buked him  and  drove  him  away. 

He  then  came  to  Hillel  with  the  same  plea,  and  Hillel 
accepted  him.  He  began  teaching  him  the  alphabet  in  regular 
sequence.  The  next  day  he  taught  him  the  letters  backward. 
"  You  did  not  teach  me  so  yesterday,"  the  man  objected. 
"Aye,  aye,  my  son;  must  thou  not  repose  confidence  in  me? 
Thou  must  likewise  repose  confidence  in  the  oral  law  (which 
appears  at  first  sight  different  from  the  written  law)." 

Another  Gentile  came  to  Shamai  saying:  "  Convert  me  on 
the  condition  that  thou  teach  me  the  whole  Torah  while  I  stand 
on  one  foot."  Shamai  pushed  him  away  with  the  builders' 
measure  he  held  in  his  hand.  He  thereupon  came  to  Hillel, 
and  the  latter  accepted  him.  He  told  him:  "  What  is  hateful 
to  thee,  do  not  unto  thy  fellow;  this  is  the  whole  law.  All  the 
rest  is  a  commentary  to  this  law;  go  and  learn  it." 

Another  Gentile  once  heard  a  Jewish  teacher  instructing  his 
class  about  the  vestments  of  the  high  priest.  He  took  a  fancy 
to  that,  and  thought  he  would  accept  Judaism  in  order  to  be 
made  a  high  priest.  Thus  he  appeared  before  Shamai  and  said : 
"  Convert  me  on  the  condition  that  I  be  made  a  high  priest." 
Shamai  pushed  him  away  with  the  builders'  measure  he  held  in 
his  hand.  He  came  to  Hillel  (with  the  same  request),  and  the 
latter  accepted  him.  Said  Hillel  to  him:  "  Do  people  select 
a  king  unless  he  knows  the  laws  of  their  government  ?  Thou 
must  study  the  laws  of  our  government  (if  thou  wilt  become  a 
high  priest)."  The  convert  began  studying  Torah.  When  he 
came  to  the  passage:  "  A  stranger  who  comes  near  (to  the  ves- 
sels of  the  sanctuary)  shall  die  "  [Numb.  i.  51],  he  asked:  "To 
whom  does  this  passage  refer?"  Hillel  answered:  "To  any 
one  (who  is  not  a  descendant  of  Aaron  the  high  priest),  even  if 
he  would  be  David,  the  king  of  Israel."  Then  the  proselyte 
made  the  following  deduction  :  If  the  people  of  Israel,  who  are 
called  the  children  of  the  Lord,  so  that  out  of  love  to  them  the 
Omnipotent  said:  "  My  first-born  son  is  Israel"  [Ex.  iv.  22] — 
if  of  them  it  is  written,  "  a  stranger  that  comes  nigh  shall  die," 
the  more  so  must  it  be  with  an  insignificant  stranger,  who  is 
come  (within  the  pale  of  Judaism)  merely  with  his  staff  and  his 
bag.  He  went  before  Shamai  and  said:  "Am  I  qualified  to 
become  a  high  priest  ?  Is  it  not  written  [Numb.  iii.  lo] :  '  A 
stranger  that  comes  nigh  shall  die  '  ?  "     He  then  appeared  before 


TRACT    SABBATH.  51 

Hillel  and  said:  "  For  thy  equanimity  of  temper,  O  Hillel!  may 
blessings  be  upon  thy  head,  for  thou  hast  gathered  me  in  under 
the  wings  of  the  Shekhina."  The  three  converts  met  some  time 
later,  and  said  :  ' '  The  impulsiveness  of  Shamai  came  near  sending 
us  adrift  in  the  world  (outside  of  the  pale  of  religion);  Hillel's 
equanimity  of  temper  gathered  us  in  under  the  wings  of  the 
Shekhina." 

Resh  Lakish  said:  What  does  the  verse,  "  The  trust  of  thy 
times  shall  be  the  strength  of  salvation,  wisdom,  and  knowl- 
edge," etc.  [Isa.  xxxiii.  6j — what  docs  this  mean  ?  (I  think 
that  this  can  be  a  biblical  support  to  the  six  divisions  of  the 
Mishna  which  we  possess.*)  "The  trust"  comes  within  the 
section  of  "  Zeraim  "  (seeds);  "  thy  times"  in  "  Moed  "  (fes- 
tivals); "strength"  in  "  Nashim  "  (women);  "salvation"  in 
"  Nezikin  "  (jurisprudence);  "  wisdom  "  in  "  Qodoshim  "  (holi- 
ness), and  "  knowledge  "  in  section  "  Taharith  "  (purity).  And 
yet  "  the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  his  treasure  "  {i.e.,  all  these  do  not 
avail  where  there  is  not  the  fear  of  the  Lord).f 

Rabha  said:  When  a  man  comes  before  the  (divine)  judg- 
ment, he  is  asked:  "Hast  thou  traded  in  good  faith?  Hast 
thou  apportioned  regular  times  for  study?  Hast  thou  produced 
children  ?  Didst  thou  hope  for  salvation?  Hast  thou  discussed 
subjects  of  wisdom?  Hast  thou  formed  (logical)  conclusions 
from  the  things  thou  hast  learned  ?"  After  all  this  (if  he  can 
affirm  all  these  questions),  if  he  possessed  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
it  was  well ;  if  not,  it  was  not  so.  This  is  like  a  man  who  ordered 
his  agent  to  store  a  measure  of  wheat  in  the  attic.  The  agent 
did  so.  Then  the  man  asked  him  whether  he  had  mixed  some 
dry  dust  with  the  wheat  (for  protection  against  weevils),  and 
he  answered  nay.  "  It  were  better,"  said  the  merchant,  "  if 
thou  hadst  not  stored  it." 

Rabba  b.  R.  Huna  said:  "  A  man  who  possesses  learning, 

*  The  six  departments  enumerated  here  are  those  of  the  Mishna,  into  which  the 
rabbis  have  divided  all  the  subjects  touched  upon  in  the  Bible. 

f  "  Trust  "  comes  within  the  department  of  "  Seeds"  because  the  tithe  due  the 
priests  and  Levites  by  the  farmers  was  not  fixed  legally  as  to  quantity,  but  was 
trusted  to  the  honesty  of  the  donor.  "  Thy  times"  comes  within  "  Festivals"  for 
selt-cvident  reasons.  *'  Strength"  comes  within  "  Women,"  for  the  reason  that  the 
Hebrew  word,  "chosen,"  also  means  inheritance,  and  heirs  are  naturally  produced 
by  women  (this  is  the  opinion  of  Rashi).  "  Salvation  "  in  "  Jurisprudence  ":  all  laws 
pertaining  to  the  saving  of  life  and  property.  "  Wisdom  "  in  "  Holiness  ":  the  holy 
sacrifices  requiring  the  exercise  of  much  wisdom.  "Knowledge"  in  "Purity": 
the  determining  of  pure  and  defiled  things  necessarily  demanded  thorough  knosvl- 
edge  of  the  subject. 


52  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

but  has  no  fear  of  Heaven,  is  like  the  manager  (of  a  palace)  who 
has  the  keys  to  the  inside  apartments,  but  lacks  the  one  which 
opens  the  outside  gate.     How  can  he  enter  ?  " 

R.  Janai  proclaimed:  "  Alas  for  him  who  has  no  dwelling, 
yet  strives  to  make  the  door  of  a  dwelling!  "  R.  Jehudah  said: 
The  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  created  the  world  only  for  the 
purpose  that  man  should  fear  Him,  for  it  is  written:  "God 
hath  so  made  it,  that  (men)  should  fear  him  "  [Eccl.  iii.  14]. 

R.  Simon  and  R.  Elazar  were  sitting  together  as  R.  Jacob 
b.  Aha  came  passing  by.  Said  one  of  them:  "  Come,  let  us 
arise  before  him,  for  he  is  a  man  that  fears  sins."  Said  the 
other:  "  Aye;  let  us  arise  before  him,  for  he  is  a  son  of  en- 
lightenment (a  scholar)."  Said  the  former:  I  tell  thee  that  he 
is  a  man  that  is  afraid  of  sins,  and  thou  sayest  he  is  a  scholar. 
Thou  shouldst  be  mindful  of  what  R.  Elazar  said :  The  Holy 
One,  blessed  be  He,  has  nothing  better  in  the  world  than  (men 
who  possess)  the  fear  of  Heaven,  for  thus  it  is  written:  "  And 
now,  Israel,  what  doth  the  Lord  thy  God  require  of  thee,  but 
to  fear  the  Lord  thy  God  "  [Deut.  x.  12]. 

R.  Ulla  lectured:  What  does  the  passage  mean,  "  Be  not 
wicked  over  much  "  [Eccl.  vii.  17].  Is  it  allowed  to  be  wicked 
at  all  ?  Nay,  but  the  passage  means  this:  If  one  has  eaten  gar- 
lic and  has  acquired  a  bad  odor,  he  must  not  eat  more  garlic 
because  the  bad  odor  is  (about  him)  already.  Rabba  b.  R.  Ulla 
lectured:  It  is  written:  "  For  there  are  no  fetters  in  them,  but 
their  strength  is  firm"  [Psalms,  Ixxiii.  4].  The  Holy  One, 
blessed  be  He,  said:  "  It  is  not  enough  that  the  wicked  do  not 
trouble  for  nor  fear  the  day  of  their  death,  but  that  their  heart 
within  them  is  as  strong  as  a  strong  fortress."  Which  is  similar 
to  Rabba's  explanation  of  the  passage:  "This  is  their  way; 
their  folly"  [ibid,  xlix,  14].  The  wicked  know  that  their  man- 
ner (of  living)  leads  them  to  death,  and  still  their  kidneys  wax 
fat  (implying  their  blindness  to  the  fact).  Perhaps  thou  wilt 
attribute  this  to  their  forgetfulness  ?  Therefore  it  is  written: 
"  What  will  happen  after  their  lives  is  the  subject  of  their  say- 
ings," whence  we  conclude  that  while  they  do  not  repent,  they 
continually  speak  of  their  death. 

To  spare  the  lamp^''  etc.  With  whom  does  R.  Jose  agree  ? 
If  he  agrees  with  R.  Jehudah,  he  should  declare  culpable  even 
these;  and  if  he  agrees  with  R.  Simeon,  he  should  declare  free 
even  (the  man  who  extinguishes  the  lamp)  for  the  purpose  of 
saving  the  wick.     Said  Ulla:  By  all  means  R.  Jose  agrees  with 


TRACT    SABBATH.  53 

R.  Jehudah,  but  he  holds  that  if  one  destroys  in  order  to  rebuild 
in  the  same  place,  he  is  guilty  (of  the  act)  of  breaking;  but  if 
one  destroys,  not  intending  to  rebuild  in  the  same  place,  he  is 
not  (guilty  of)  breaking.  R.  Johanan,  however,  maintains  that 
he  holds  as  R.  Simeon ;  but  in  the  case  of  this  wick  it  is  differ- 
ent, as  R.  Hamnunah  or  R.  Ada  b.  A'haba  interpreted  our 
Mishna  that  it  reads  "  from  a  wick  which  needs  singeing,"  and 
it  is  such  a  case.  R.  Simeon  also  agrees  that  it  is  prohibited 
because  it  is  considered  that  he  repairs  a  vessel.  Said  Rabha: 
It  seems  that  this  explanation  is  right,  as  the  Mishna  states  "  to 
be  formed,"  and  not  a  cinder  is  formed  (already). 

MISHNA  VII.  :  For  three  sins  women  die  of  childbirth:  for 
negligence  (of  the  laws)  during  their  menstruation,  neglect  of 
separating  the  first  dough,  and  for  neglecting  to  light  the  (Sab- 
bath) lamp. 

GEMARA:  Why  so  ?  Thus  a  Galilean  master  lectured 
before  R.  Hisda:  The  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  says:  I  have 
created  you  with  power  of  blood ;  I  have  warned  you  concern- 
ing blood;  I  have  called  you  "  the  first  produce"  [Jer.  ii.  3], 
and  charged  you  to  sacrifice  the  "  first  of  your  dough  "  [Numb, 
xvi.  21];  the  soul  that  I  gave  you  is  called  a  light,  and  I  have 
charged  you  concerning  the  (Sabbath)  light.  If  you  observe 
these  things,  it  is  well;  if  not,  I  shall  take  }'our  souls.  But 
■why  should  this  happen  at  the  time  of  childbirth  ?  Said  Rabha: 
When  the  ox  falls  or  is  felled,  it  is  time  to  sharpen  the  knife.* 

And  when  are  the  sins  of  men  passed  upon  ?  Said  Resh 
Lakish:  When  they  pass  a  dangerous  place  that  is  like  a  bridge 
(which  is  unsafe).  Rabh  would  not  embark  on  a  ship  that  car- 
ried an  idolater.  Said  he:  "  His  time  to  be  punished  may 
come,  and  I  (being  on  the  same  vessel)  may  have  to  suffer  with 
him."  Samuel,  however,  would  go  to  sea  only  on  a  vessel 
which  carried  idolaters,  saying:  "  Satan  hardly  ever  metes  out 
punishment  to  two  people  "  (of  different  beliefs).  R.  Janai 
always  examined  a  vessel  before  he  embarked.  This  he  did  in 
conformity  with  his  own  theory  elsewhere,  for  thus  he  taught: 
"  A  man  should  never  place  himself  in  danger,  expecting  that 
a  miracle  will  be  wrought  for  him ;  for  it  may  be  that  no 
such  miracle  will  be  wrought,  and  if  a  miracle  is  wrought  for 
him,  it  will  be  deducted  from  the  reward  due  his  merits  in  the 

*  When  the  ox  is  felled  the  knife  should  be  ready,  lest  he  rise  apain  and  cause 
more  trouble  ;  thus  it  is  stated  that  women  die  at  time  of  childbirth  because,  while 
they  are  in  danger,  the  punishment  for  transgressions  is  also  inflicted  I 


54  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

world  to  come."  And  R.  Hanin  said:  "Where  is  this  to  be 
found  in  the  Scripture  ?"  From  the  verse:  "  I  am  not  worthy 
of  all  thy  kindness  and  of  all  thy  truth  "  [Gen.  xxxii.  ii].  R. 
Zera  would  never  walk  under  date  trees  in  stormy  weather.  R. 
Itz'hak  b.  R.  Jehudah  said:  A  man  must  always  pray  that  he 
should  not  become  sick,  for  if  sickness  befall  him,  he  must  be 
possessed  of  special  virtues  in  order  to  get  well  again.  And  to 
the  question  of  Mar  Uqba:  Is  this  to  be  found  in  the  Scrip- 
ture ?  he  was  told  that  the  school  of  R.  Ishmael  maintains 
the  passage  in  question  is  to  be  taken  from  Deut.  xxii.  8 — viz. : 
"  Peradventure  one  may  fall  down  from  there."  The  word 
"  Hanofel,"  which  is  in  the  past  tense  and  implies  that  he  has 
fallen  down,  although  such  a  case  had  not  happened  as  yet,  is 
simply  a  matter  of  conjecture  on  the  part  of  this  school,  which 
considered  a  predestined  thing  as  a  matter  that  had  already 
occurred,  because  the  fall  was  already  predestined  for  the  guilty 
person;  as  it  is  said:  The  reward  of  virtue  is,  however,  brought 
about  by  a  meritorious  person,  while  the  chastisement  for  sin  is 
dealt  out  through  a  sinner  (and  his  not  making  a  railing  around 
his  roof  constitutes  him  a  guilty  person).     [See  Deut.  xxii,  8.] 

The  rabbis  taught:  He  who  becomes  sick,  death  approaching, 
should  be  told  to  confess  his  sins,  for  all  those  who  are  to  suffer 
the  death  penalty  must  make  a  confession.  When  a  man  goes 
out  to  a  market  (where  there  are  always  dangerous  people  in  the 
crowd),  he  should  consider  himself  like  one  arrested  by  a  ser- 
geant. When  his  head  aches,  he  should  consider  himself  as  one 
put  in  prison.  If  he  cannot  rise  from  his  bed,  he  should  con- 
sider himself  as  one  indicted  before  Gardom  (a  criminal  court); 
if  he  has  good  advocates  to  defend  him,  he  may  go  free;  if  not, 
he  cannot  be  saved.  The  defending  attorneys  of  a  man  (before 
divine  justice)  are  penitence  and  good  deeds.  If  there  should 
be  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  accusers  against  him  and  only 
one  to  plead  in  his  favor,  he  is  saved,  as  it  is  written :  "  If  there 
be  a  messenger  with  him,  an  interpreter,  one  among  a  thousand 
to  show  unto  man  his  uprightness,  then  He  is  gracious  unto 
him,"  etc.  [Job  xxxiii,  23],  R.  Eliezer  b.  R.  Jose  the  Galilean 
said :  Even  if  only  one  thousandth  part  of  one  advocate  out  of 
a  thousand  plead  in  the  man's  favor,  although  the  rest  speak 
against  him,  he  is  saved;  because  it  is  said  "  one  "  defender  out 
of  a  thousand  sufifices. 

There  is  a  Boraitha:  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel  said:  "The 
laws  of  holy  offerings,  heave-offerings,  and  tithes  are  integral 


TRACT    SABBAIH.  55 

parts  of  the  Torah,  and  yet  their  observance  was  intrusted  to 
the  common  people." 

There  is  another  Boraitha:  R.  Nathan  says:  For  the  sin  of 
vows  one's  wife  dies,  as  it  is  written  [Proverbs,  xxii.  27]: 
"  .  .  .  why  should  he  take  away  thy  bed  from  under 
thee  ? "  ^ 

Another  Boraitha  states:  R.  Nehemiah  said:  The  penalty 
for  the  sin  of  hating  without  cause  is  strife  at  home,  the  wife 
(of  the  sinner)  gives  birth  before  her  time,  his  sons  and  daugh- 
ters  die  young. 

R.  Elazar  b.  Jchudah  says:  The  penalty  for  the  sin  of 
neglecfing  the  first  dough  is:  no  blessing  in  the  harvest,  high 
prices  (for  necessities),  the  consumption  of  the  seed  by  strangers ; 
but  if  this  portion  is  given,  blessings  will  surely  follow,  as  it  is 
written:  "  The  first  of  your  dough  shall  you  give  to  the  priest, 
to  cause  a  blessing  to  rest  on  thy  house  "  [Ez.  xliv.  30].  The 
penalty  for  the  sin  of  neglecting  heave-offerings  and  tithes  is: 
the  sky  withholds  rain  and  dew;  dearth  comes  on,  there  are  no 
profits,  and  men  run  about  to  earn  a  livelihood,  but  they  do  not 
succeed.  But  if  these  offerings  are  given,  blessings  will  come, 
as  it  is  written :  "  Bring  ye  all  the  tithes  into  the  storehouse, 
etc.,  and  prove  me  but  herewith,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  if  I 
will  not  open  for  you  the  windows  of  heaven,  and  pour  out  for 
you  a  blessing  until  there  be  more  than  enough"  [Mai.  iii.  10]. 
The  penalty  for  the  sin  of  robbery  is:  locust  pestilence,  famine 
comes,  and  the  people  feed  on  the  flesh  of  their  children,  as  it 
is  written  [Amos,  iv.  1-7,  q.  v.]  For  the  sins  of  curbing, 
perverting,  and  polluting  justice,  and  of  neglecting  the  law, 
the  sword  comes  on,  (enemies  take)  much  spoil,  the  people  eat 
and  are  never  satisfied,  and  they  must  weigh  the  bread  they  eat 
{t.i".,  eat  in  small  portions,  for  fear  that  nothing  be  left  for  the 
next  meal),  as  it  is  written  [Leviticus,  xxvi.  25]:  "Avenging 
the  quarrel  of  my  covenant,"  and  covenant  is  synonymous  with 
the  Law,  as  it  is  written  [Jeremiah,  xxxiii.  25]:  "Thus  hath 
said  the  Lord,"  etc.  For  the  sins  of  unnecessary  and  false 
swearing,  perjury,  blasphemy,  and  desecration  of  the  Sabbath, 
many  wild  beasts  come  and  domestic  cattle  arc  destroyed,  the 
population  decreases,  and  the  roads  are  bare  (without  travellers), 
as  it  is  written  [Lev.  xxvi.   18  to  the  end  of  the  parargaph], 

*  The  text  continues  with  the  punishment  of  death  for  different  sins,  which  are 
repeated  in  other  tracts,  but  we  have  omitted  them  here,  as  they  will  be  translated  in 
the  proper  place. 


56  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

For  the  sin  of  bloodshed  the  sanctuary  is  laid  waste  and  She- 
khina  departs  from  Israel,  as  it  is  written  [Numbers,  xxxv.  34]  : 
"  And  ye  shall  not  render  unclean  the  land  which  ye  inhabit, 
in  the  midst  of  which  I  dwell ;  for  I,  the  Lord,  dwell  in  the 
midst  of  the  children  of  Israel  "  ;  which  signifies  that  if  ye  ren- 
der it  unclean,  the  Shekhina  will  depart  from  the  land.  For 
the  sins  of  adultery,  idolatry,  and  disregard  of  (the  laws  of)  the 
Sabbatic  and  Jubilee  years  exile  comes,  and  (other  nations) 
take  up  the  place  (of  the  exiles),  as  it  is  written  [Lev.  xviii.  and 
xxvii.].  For  the  sin  of  defiling  the  mouth  (speaking  indecent 
things),  great  oppressions  and  evil  decrees  are  (constantly)  re- 
newed, young  men  die,  orphans  and  widows  cry  (for  help),  but 
are  not  answered,  as  it  is  written  [Isaiah,  ix.,  end  of  verse  16]: 
"  For  all  this  his  anger  is  not  turned  away  and  his  hand  still 
remaineth  stretched  out,"  which  is  explained  by  R.  Hanan  b. 
Ahba  as  follows:  "  All  know  for  what  purpose  a  bride  marries; 
still,  he  who  defiles  his  mouth  (by  speaking  of  its  details),  even 
if  a  happy  life  of  seventy  years  is  decreed  for  him,  the  decree 
is  turned  aside."  Rabba  b.  Shila  in  the  name  of  R.  Hisda 
says:  Gehenna  is  made  deep  for  him  who  defiles  his  mouth,  as 
it  is  written  [Proverbs,  xxii.  14].  R.  Na'hman  b.  Isaac  says:  It 
is  made  deep  even  for  the  one  who  listens  to  (indecent  talk)  and 
does  not  protest  against  it  [ibid.  15].  R.  Oshia  says:  He  who 
abuses  himself  (by  masturbation)  becomes  afflicted  with  wounds 
and  boils;  not  only  this,  but  he  is  punished  with  dropsy.*  R. 
Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak  says  dropsy  is  an  evidence  of  sin.  Samuel 
the  Little  took  sick  with  it,  and  he  said:  "  Lord  of  the  Uni- 
verse! Who  will  prove  (that  I  am  not  guilty  of  immoral  con- 
duct) ? "  Hereupon  he  got  well  again.  Abayi  took  sick  with 
it.  Said  Rabha:  "  I  know  that  the  Nahmanite  (son  of  Na'h- 
man) starves  himself." 

The  rabbis  taught:  There  are  four  evidences:  an  evidence 
of  sin  is  dropsy;  an  evidence  of  hate  without  cause  is  jaundice; 
an  evidence  of  pride  is  poverty;  an  evidence  of  calumny  (spread- 
ing evil  reports  about  others)  is  croup.  The  sickness  of  croup 
becomes  epidemic  for  (the  sin  of  neglecting  to  give)  tithes;  but 
R.  Elazar  b.  Jose  said,  only  for  the  sin  of  calumny. 

R.  Jehudah,  R.  Jose,  and  R.  Simeon  were  sitting  together, 
and  Jehudah,  the  son  of  proselytes,  sat  before  them.  R.  Jehu- 
dah opened  the  conversation,  saying:  "  How  beautiful  are  the 

*  The  text  refers  also  to  verses  in  the  Scripture,  but  as  there  is  no  direct  proof, 
we  have  omitted  them. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  57 

works  of  this  nation  (the  Romans).  They  have  established 
markets,  they  have  built  bridges,  they  have  opened  bathing- 
houses."  R.  Jose  said  nothing,  but  R.  Simeon  b.  Johai  said: 
"  All  these  things  they  have  instituted  for  their  own  sake. 
Their  markets  are  gathering-places  for  harlots;  they  have  built 
baths  for  the  purpose  of  indulging  themselves  in  their  comforts; 
they  have  built  bridges  to  collect  tolls  from  those  who  cross 
them."  Jchudah,  the  son  of  proselytes,  went  and  reported  this 
conversation,  and  it  came  to  the  ears  of  the  government.  Said 
(the  rulers):  "  Jehudah,  who  has  praised  (our  doings),  shall  be 
promoted;  Jose,  who  said  nothing,  shall  be  exiled  to  Sophoris; 
Simeon,  who  spoke  disparagingly,  shall  be  put  to  death."  R. 
Simeon  and  his  son  then  went  and  hid  themselves  in  the  col- 
lege, and  their  wives  brought  them  every  day  some  bread  and 
a  pitcher  of  water,  and  they  ate.  When  the  decree  became 
imperative,  he  said  to  his  son:  "  Women  are  of  a  pliant  dispo- 
sition. They  (the  government  agents)  will  perhaps  trouble 
them,  and  they  (the  women)  will  reveal  our  whereabouts." 
They  then  went  and  hid  themselves  in  a  cave.  A  miracle 
occurred,  that  a  date  tree  and  a  spring  of  water  came  out  for 
them.  They  stripped  themselves  naked  and  sat  down  covered 
with  sand  up  to  their  necks.  Thus  they  sat  all  day  studying; 
only  at  the  time  of  prayer  they  put  on  their  garments,  and  after 
performing  their  devotion  they  took  them  off  again  for  fear 
they  might  wear  them  out.  In  this  wise  they  spent  twelve 
years  in  their  cave.  Elijah  then  came  to  the  opening  of  the 
cave  and  said:  "  Who  will  inform  the  son  of  Johai  that  the 
Caesar  (governor)  is  dead  and  his  decree  is  annulled  ?"  Here- 
upon they  left  the  cave.  They  then  went  forth  and  saw  men 
who  were  ploughing  and  sowing  grain.  Said  R.  Simeon: 
"  These  people  leave  the  works  which  lead  to  everlasting  life 
and  occupy  themselves  with  worldly  things."  After  this  every 
place  where  they  chanced  to  turn  their  eyes  was  burned.  Sud- 
denly a  "  Bath-kol  "  (heavenly  voice)  was  heard,  which  said 
unto  them:  "  Have  ye  come  to  destroy  my  world  ?  Go,  return 
to  your  cave."  They  returned  and  stayed  in  the  cave  another 
twelvemonth,  saying  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  in  Gehenna 
only  lasts  twelve  months.  At  the  end  of  that  time  came  again 
the  heavenly  voice  and  said:  "  Go  out  of  the  cave,"  and  they 
came  out.  And  R.  Simeon  said  to  his  son:  "  It  is  enough  for 
this  world  that  I  and  you  are  occupied  with  the  study  of  the 
Torah  and  with  good  deeds."      This  happened  on  a  Friday  near 


58  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

sunset.  They  saw  a  man  hurrying  with  two  bunches  of  myrtle 
in  his  hand,  "  What  are  they  for?"  they  asked  him,  "To 
honor  the  Sabbath,"  was  the  reply.  "  Would  not  one  bunch 
be  enough  ?"  "  Nay;  one  is  for  the  command  '  remember,'* 
the  other  for  the  command  '  observe,'  "  said  the  man.  Said  R. 
Simeon  to  his  son:  "  Behold,  how  Israel  loves  the  commands 
(of  God)."     This  reassured  them. 

R.  Simeon's  father-in-law,  R.  Pinhas  b.  Yair,  heard  (that 
they  were  coming)  and  went  to  meet  them.  He  took  them  to 
the  bath-house.  While  R.  Simeon  was  cleaning  his  (own) 
body,  R.  Pinhas  noticed  that  it  was  full  of  blisters;  tears 
ran  from  his  eyes  when  he  saw  this,  and  (the  tears  falling 
upon  the  flesh  of  his  son-in-law)  caused  R.  Simeon  pain. 
Said  R.  Pinhas:  "  Woe  unto  me,  that  I  see  thee  in  this 
state."  R.  Simeon  rejoined:  "Well  unto  thee,  that  thou 
seest  me  so,  for  if  thou  hadst  not  seen  me  in  this  state  thou 
couldst  not  find  in  me  (all  the  learning)  that  thou  canst  find  in 
me  now." 

MISHNA  VIII. :  One  must  say  three  things  in  his  house  on 
Friday,  when  it  is  getting  dark — viz. :  "  Have  you  set  aside  the 
tithes  (from  the  fruit,  which  is  to  be  eaten  on  the  Sabbath)  ?" 
"  Have  you  put  up  the  Erubh  ?"  and  "  Light  ye  the  lamp." 
When  one  is  in  doubt  whether  darkness  has  set  in,  he  must  not 
separate  tithes  from  (fruit  of  which  he  is)  certain  (that  tithes  had 
not  been  set  aside),  and  he  shall  not  put  vessels  under  process  of 
lavation,f  and  he  shall  not  light  a  lamp  any  more.  But  he  may 
set  aside  tithes  from  (fruit  of  which  he  is)  not  certain  (that  tithes 
have  been  set  aside),  and  he  may  put  up  the  Erubh  and  also  put 
his  victuals  into  the  stove  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  them 
warm. 

GEMARA:  Whence  is  this  deduced?  Said  R.  Joshua  b. 
Levi:  from  [Job,  v.  24]  "  Thou  shalt  know  that  peace  is  in  thy 
tent,  and  shalt  examine  thy  dwelling,  that  thou  mayest  not 
sin."  Rabba  b.  R.  Huna  said:  Although  the  masters  have 
taught  that  "  one  m  ust  say  three  things, ' '  etc. ,  yet  he  ought  to  say 
them  quietly,  in  order  tliat  (his  family)  should  accept  them  from 
him  (in  good  grace).     Said  R.  Ashi:  "  I  have  not  heard  of  this 

*  In  the  Decalogue  of  Exodus  the  fourth  commandment  begins  with  the  word 
"Zakhor"  (remember);  in  Deuteronomy  it  begins  with  the  word  "Shamor" 
(observe). 

f  All  new  vessels  must  undergo  a  process  of  lavation  before  they  can  be  used 
[Num.  xxxi.  23]. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  59 

saying  of  Rabba  b.  R.  Huna  before,  yet  I  have  always  done  so 
as  a  matter  of  common  sense." 

Does  not  the  text  contradict  itself  ?  It  states:  "  One  must 
say  three  things,  etc.,  when  it  is  getting  dark."  This  implies 
that  if  he  is  in  doubt  whether  it  is  getting  dark  or  whether  dark- 
ness has  already  set  in,  he  cannot  say  it  any  longer.  In  the  lat- 
ter part,  however,  it  says  "  if  he  is  in  doubt,  etc.,  he  may  put 
up  an  Erubh." 

Said  Rj  Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Ilyya  b.  Ashi,  quoting  Rabh : 
"  It  presents  no  difficulty.  In  the  first  part  it  speaks  of  an 
Erubh  of  Techum  (that  marks  the  boundary  of  two  thousand 
ells  around  the  city,  where  it  is  allowed  for  one  to  walk  on  Sab- 
bath) ;  in  the  latter  part  it  speaks  of  an  Erubh  by  which  the 
neighbors  of  adjoining  courts  make  common  cause." 

Rabba  said :  The  rabbis  have  prohibited  putting  victuals 
among  things  (that  preserve  but)  that  do  not  increase  the  heat 
after  dark,  for  fear  lest  one  find  them  too  cold  and  be  tempted 
to  make  them  boil.  Said  Abayi  to  him  :  "  If  such  is  the  case, 
why  did  they  not  enact  the  same  prohibition  for  (the  time)  when 
it  is  twilight  also  ?  "  Answered  Rabba:  "  At  that  time  the  pots 
are  generally  boiling  hot." 

Rabba  said  again :  "  Why  was  it  said  that  one  must  not  put 
victuals  among  things  that  increase  the  heat,  when  it  is  yet  day, 
for  fear  lest  one  put  them  in  cinders  where  there  are  yet  live 
coals?"  Said  Abayi  to  him:  "  What  harm  is  there  ?  let  him 
do  so."  And  he  answered:  "  It  may  be  feared  lest  he  be 
tempted  to  stir  the  burning  coals."  The  rabbis  taught :  "  Which 
is  the  time  of  twilight  ?"  When  the  sun  sets  and  the  eastern 
sky  is  red ;  when  the  lower  (edge  of  a  cloud)  is  dark,  while  the 
upper  part  is  not  yet  dark;  but  when  the  upper  edge  (of  such 
a  cloud)  is  as  dark  as  the  lower,  night  has  set  in.  So  says  R. 
Jehudah.  R.  Nehemiah  says:  (The  duration  of  twilight)  is  the 
time  one  takes  to  walk  half  a  mile  from  the  moment  the  sun 
sets.  R.  Jose  says:  Twilight  is  like  the  twinkling  of  an  eye; 
the  one  (day)  goes  out,  the  other  (night)  comes  in,  and  it  is  im- 
possible to  determine  it.  And  each  of  them  is  in  accordance 
with  his  theory  elsewhere;  as  it  was  taught:  What  is  the  dura- 
tion of  twlight  ?  Rabba  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehudah,  quoting 
Samuel,  said :  (The  time  it  takes  to  walk)  three-quarters  of 
a  mile;  and  R.  Joseph  said  in  the  name  of  the  same  authority: 
Two-thirds  of  a  mile.  The  difference  between  them  is  half 
a  dary<a.     (The  contrary   is   the  case  when  a  bee-hive  is  con- 


6o  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

cerned ;  in  that  case  Rabba  said :  A  bee-hive  of  two  kurs  *  one 
may  move  on  the  Sabbath;  of  three,  one  shall  not.  R.  Joseph, 
however,  said  that  one  may  move  even  a  hive  of  three  kurs,  but 
one  of  four  is  forbidden.  Said  Abayi :  I  have  inquired  of  the 
master  at  the  time  of  the  deed,  and  he  did  not  even  permit  me 
to  move  one  of  two  kurs.) 

Rabha  saw  that  Abayi  was  (one  Friday)  looking  toward  the 
east  (to  calculate  the  duration  of  twilight).  Said  he  to  him : 
"Dost  thou  think  the  masters  spoke  of  the  sky  in  the  {"asi f 
They  spoke  of  an  object  in  the  east  that  reflects  the  red  sky  (of 
the  west),  like  a  window  (placed  eastward  of  the  setting  sun). 

"  It  takes  one  to  walk  half  a  mile."  Said  R.  Hanina:  "  If 
one  wishes  to  know  the  time  according  to  R.  Nehemiah's  calcu- 
lation, he  should  leave  the  sun  (see  it  set)  on  the  top  of  Karmel 
(a  certain  mountain  peak  on  the  sea-coast),  go  down,  dive  into 
the  sea,  and  go  up  (the  mountain)  again ;  this  will  give  him  the 
exact  time."  R.  Jehudah,  however,  in  the  name  of  Samuel 
said:  (To  know  the  exact  time  of  twilight  may  be  fixed  thus:) 
"  If  only  one  star  (can  be  seen  in  the  sky),  it  is  yet  day;  if  two 
stars,  it  is  twilight;  three  stars,  it  is  night."  And  so  also  we 
have  learned  plainly  in  a  Boraitha  with  the  addition :  Said  R. 
Jose :  The  stars  mentioned  do  not  mean  the  big  stars,  that  can 
be  seen  in  daytime,  and  not  the  small  stars,  which  cannot  easily 
be  seen  at  night,  but  stars  of  medium  size. 

R.  Jose  b.  R.  Zebhida  said:  If  one  (unintentionally)  per- 
forms work  on  both  times  of  twilight  (Friday  and  Sabbath),  he 
must  certainly  bring  a  sin-offering  (because  at  one  of  both  times 
it  was  certainly  Sabbath). 

Rabba  said  to  his  servant:  "  You,  who  are  not  an  expert  in 
the  scholarly  calculation  of  time,  must  light  the  Sabbath  lamp 
when  you  see  the  (last  rays  of  the)  sun  on  top  of  the  trees.  In 
cloudy  weather  how  shall  it  be  ?  (The  lamp  must  be  lit)  in  the 
city  when  the  hens  go  to  roost ;  in  the  field,  when  the  ravens 
fly  to  roost  or  when  the  mallow  shrub  f  (inclines  its  head  to  the 
west). 

The  rabbis  taught :  Six  times  was  the  signal  blown  on 
Friday:  the  first  time  to  stop  work  in  the  field,  the  second  to 

*  Kur  was  an  ancient  measure  and  cannot  be  determined  at  the  present  time  ;  it 
may  have  been  about  three  gallons.  See  Schoenhak's  "  llamashbir."  A  danka  is 
a  twelfth  or  a  half  of  a  sixth  part. 

f  The  mallow  (Aiiana  or  f/arna,  see  Arukh),  more  than  any  other  plant,  was  be- 
lieved to  incline  its  head  toward  the  sun,  like  our  own  sunflower. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  6t 

stop  it  in  the  city  and  in  the  stores,  the  third  time  to  light  the 
l.imps.  So  said  R.  Nathan.  R.  Jehudah  tlic  Prince  says  that 
the  third  time  is  sounded  to  take  off  the  phylacteries.  Then 
(the  beadle)  waits  about  as  long  as  is  required  to  bake  a  small 
fish,  or  for  bread  to  cleave  to  the  oven,  and  he  sounds  again  the 
three  tones  *  of  the  signal  in  succession  for  the  Sabbath  (that  is 
already  come).  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel  said:  "  What  shall  we 
do  with  the  Babylonians  ?  They  sound  the  signal  first,  and 
then  blow  the  trumpet;  from  the  moment  the  trumpet  is 
sounded  they  cease  work."  They  do  so  because  it  is  with  them 
a  matter  of  inherited  custom. 

R.  Jehudah  taught  his  son,  R.  Itz'hak:  "  The  third  (sound- 
ing was  a  signal)  to  light  the  lamp."  This  agrees  with  the 
ruling  of  R.  Nathan. 

At  the  school  of  R.  Ishmael  it  was  taught:  Six  times  the 
signal  is  sounded  on  Frida}-.  When  the  first  sounding  begins, 
those  who  are  in  the  field  stop  ploughing  and  harrowing  and  all 
field  work.  At  the  entrance  to  the  city  those  who  are  near 
must  wait  until  the  distant  (farmers)  come,  so  that  they  enter 
the  city  all  together.  The  stores  are  yet  open,  and  the  stalls 
(upon  which  wares  are  laid  out)  are  as  yet  in  their  places.  As 
soon  as  the  second  sounding  begins,  the  stalls  are  cleared  and 
the  stores  closed.  The  warm  victuals  (prepared  for  the  Sab- 
bath) and  the  pots  are  as  yet  upon  the  hearth.  As  soon  as  the 
third  sounding  begins  the  pots  are  taken  off  the  hearth,  the 
warm  victuals  are  put  in  the  stove,  and  the  lamps  are  lighted. 
Then  (the  beadle)  waits  about  as  long  as  it  is  required  to  bake 
a  small  fish  or  for  bread  to  cleave  to  the  oven,  and  he  sounds 
trumpets  and  sounds  the  signal  again  and  rests.  Said  R.  Jose 
b.  R.  Haninah:  "  I  have  heard  that  if  one  wants  to  light  up 
after  the  six  signals  he  may  do  so,  for  the  rabbis  have  allowed 
some  time  to  the  beadle  to  take  his  Shophar  (horn)  to  the  house 
(after  the  six  signals).  Said  the  schoolmen  to  him:  "  If  such 
were  the  case,  the  subject  would  depend  on  various  measure- 
ments of  time."  Nay,  but  the  beadle  has  a  concealed  place 
upon  the  roof  (where  he  sounds  the  Shophar)  and  puts  away  his 
instrument  (as  soon  as  he  has  used  it);  because  neither  a  Sho- 
phar nor  a  fife  may  be  handled  (when  the  Sabbath  is  come). 

But  have  we  not  learned  that  a  Shophar  may  be  handled, 

*  The  three  tones  of  the  Shophar  arc  technically  designated  a  "  Tekyah  "  (a  long 
simple  note):  "  Teruah  "  (a  slow  trill),  and  "Tekyah"  again.  See  note  to  Rosh 
Hashana,  p.  63,  first  edition. 


62  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

but  a  fife  may  not  ?  Says  R.  Joseph :  This  is  not  contradictory. 
Our  case  is  that  of  a  Shophar  belonging  to  the  community;  the 
case  adduced  treated  of  one  that  belongs  to  a  private  party 
(therefore  it  is  permissible). 

Said  Abayi :  "Why  may  a  Shophar  that  is  private  prop- 
erty be  handled  ?  Because  it  is  sometimes  used  for  taking  up 
water,  to  give  a  child  drink;  let  one  that  is  public  property  also 
be  allowed  to  handle,  because  it  may  be  used  in  the  same  man- 
ner." Furthermore,  was  it  not  taught :  "  As  a  Shophar  may  be 
handled,  so  also  may  the  fife  be  handled?"  According  to 
whose  ruling  is  this  ?  There  is  no  contradiction  in  all  this. 
The  one  (that  a  Shophar  may  be  handled,  but  not  a  fife)  is 
according  to  the  ruling  of  R.  Jehudah.  The  other  (that  both 
may  be  handled)  is  according  to  the  ruling  of  R.  Simeon.  The 
third  (that  neither  should  be  handled)  is  according  to  the  ruling 
of  R.  Nehemiah.  "  And  what  is  a  Shophar?"  The  same  as 
a  fife,  as  R.  Hisda  says:  "  Since  the  sanctuary  was  destroyed 
the  names  have  become  changed;  a  Shophar  is  called  a  fife,  and 
a  fife  is  called  a  Shophar." 


CHAPTER   III. 

REGULATIONS   CONCERNING    STOVES,  HEARTHS,  AND   OVENS. 

MISHNA  /, :  Cooked  victuals  may  be  put  on  a  stove  that 
was  heated  with  straw  or  stubble.  If  the  stove  was  heated  with 
the  pulp  of  poppy  seed  {i.e.,  poppy  seed  from  which  the  oil  was 
pressed  out)  or  with  wood,  (cooked  victuals)  may  not  be  put  upon 
it,  unless  the  (live)  coals  were  taken  out  or  covered  with  ashes. 
Beth  Shamai  says :  (The  latter  instance)  is  permissible  only  in  the 
case  of  victuals  that  are  to  be  kept  warm,  but  not  of  such  as  are 
improved  by  continued  cooking.  Beth  Hillel  says:  Both  alike 
are  permitted.  Beth  Shamai  says:  (Victuals)  may  be  taken  off 
the  stove,  but  not  put  back  upon  it;  Beth  Hillel  permits  it. 

GEMARA:  The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question:  "As 
for  the  expression  *  shall  not  be  put,'  does  it  (referring  to  a  pot 
that  has  been  taken  off  the  stove)  mean  '  one  shall  not  put  it 
back,'  but  if  it  has  not  been  taken  off,  it  may  be  left  there,  even 
if  the  live  coals  were  not  cleared  away  or  covered  with  ashes  ? 
Or  does  it  mean  that  the  pot  should  not  be  left  there  (even  if  it 
was  standing  there  before)  unless  the  live  coals  have  been 
cleared  out  or  damped,  so  much  the  more  should  it  not  be  put 
there  if  it  was  once  taken  off  ? "  Come  and  hear.  There  being 
two  parts  in  our  Mishna,  if  the  point  of  controversy  is  the  leav- 
ing (of  the  victuals  on  the  stove,  if  they  were  there  before), 
the  Mishna  is  to  be  explained  thus:  On  the  stove  that  was 
heated  with  straw  or  with  stubble  the  victuals  may  be  left;  on 
a  stove  that  was  heated  with  pressed  poppy  seed  or  with  wood, 
the  victuals  may  be  left  only  if  the  live  coals  were  taken  out  or 
covered  with  ashes.  What  kind  of  victuals  may  be  left  there  ? 
According  to  Beth  Shamai  such  as  are  to  be  kept  warm,  but  not 
such  as  improve  by  cooking.  And  according  to  Beth  Hillel 
both.  Thus  the  point  of  controversy  is  the  leaving  of  the  vic- 
tuals (that  had  been  on  the  stove  before).  And  as  the  (two 
schools)  differ  in  this  matter,  so  do  they  also  differ  in  their  opin- 
ions concerning  putting  them  back  upon  the  stove  if  they  were 
once  taken  off.     But  if  you  interpret  the  Mishna  to  make  the 


64  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

returning  of  the  victuals  to  the  stove  the  point  of  their  differing 
— viz.,  what  kind  of  victuals  should  be  returned  (to  the  stove), 
according  to  the  former  such  as  are  to  be  kept  warm,  but  not 
such  as  improve  by  cooking,  and  according  to  the  latter,  both. 
(If  you  put  such  a  construction  upon  the  text  of  the  Mishna,)  to 
what  purpose  is  it  repeated  ?  "  Beth  Shamai  says,"  etc.  It  may 
be  said  even  that  they  differ  concerning  putting  back,  and  never- 
theless there  is  no  difficulty,  as  the  Mishna  is  not  complete,  and 
should  read  thus:  "If  the  stove  was  heated  .  .  .  but  if 
they  stood  there  before,  they  may  be  left  there,  even  if  the  live 
coals  are  not  taken  out  or  covered  with  ashes."  And  what  may 
be  left  ?  Beth  Shamai  says  only  such  as  are  to  be  kept  warm, 
and  Beth  Hillel  says  even  victuals  requiring  cooking;  but  even 
in  the  case  of  returning  (the  victuals  to  the  stove,  if  they  have 
been  removed)  there  is  still  a  difTerence  of  opinion  between  the 
two  schools,  for  according  to  the  former  they  may  be  only  taken 
oiT,  and  according  to  the  latter  they  may  be  returned  also. 

Come*  and  hear.  R.  Helbo  in  the  name  of  R.  Hama  b. 
Gorion,  quoting  Rabh,  said:  "  The  Mishna  speaks  only  about 
putting  the  victuals  upon  the  stove,  but  as  to  putting  them  into 
the  stove  it  is  surely  prohibited."  Now,  if  thou  sayest  the  dis- 
pute is  about  returning  (the  pot  to  the  stove),  this  remark  is 
correct,  for  there  is  a  difference  to  what  place  it  is  returned, 
whether  into  the  stove  or  upon  it;  but  if  the  question  were 
about  keeping  it  on  the  stove  while  it  is  there,  what  difference 
would  it  make  ? 

Do  you  think  R.  Helbo's  report  refers  to  the  first  part  of 
the  Mishna  ?  It  refers  to  the  second  part,  in  which  Beth  Hillel 
allows  it  to  be  returned ;  and  to  this  he  says,  even  in  this  case, 
upon  the  stove  it  is  permissible,  but  not  into  the  stove. 

The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question:  "  May  (a  pot  with 
victuals)  be  placed  so  as  to  touch  the  side  of  the  stove  ?  Does 
the  prohibition  which  holds  good  for  putting  it  into  or  upon  the 
stove  apply  also  here,  or  is  touching  its  side  a  different  case  ?" 
Come  and  hear.  "  A  stove  that  was  heated  with  pressed  poppy 
seed  or  wood  may  (be  used)  to  put  a  pot  alongside  of,  but  not 
on,  unless  the  live  coals  were  taken  out  or  covered  with  ashes." 
If  the  coals  get  dim  or  fine  hurds  were  put  upon  them,  they  ar(? 
considered  as  if  their  fire  was  damped  with  ashes.      R.  Itz'hak 

*  Here  the  disciple  who  advanced  the  later  construction  of  the  Mishna  turns  ih% 
tables  on  his  interlocutor  and  brinys  forward  an  argument  in  favor  of  his  suggestion, 
introducing  it  with  the  same  words  as  the  previous  speaker  in  his  argument. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  65 

b.  Na'hmani  in  the  name  of  R.  Oshia  says:  If  the  fire  was 
damped  and  still  it  got  a-glowing,  victuals  that  are  sufficiently 
warm,  and  cooked  meats  that  require  no  more  cooking,  may 
be  left  standing  upon  it. 

Is  it  to  be  inferred  from  this  that,  if  victuals  are  improved  by 
shrivelling  (upon  the  fire),  they  may  be  left  there  ?  This  is 
a  different  case,  for  the  fire  was  damped.  If  such  is  the  case, 
what  came  R.  Itz'hak  to  teach  ?  "  Lest  one  say  that  if  the  fire 
got  to  glowing  again,  it  is  to  be  considered  as  a  fire  originally 
started  ?"  R.  Itz'hak  lets  us  know  that,  when  once  a  fire  huj 
been  damped,  we  need  have  no  further  scruples  about  letting 
the  victuals  remain  on  it. 

R.  Shesheth  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan :  Victuals  that 
require  additional  warming  or  additional  cooking  may  be  left 
upon  a  stove  that  was  heated  with  pressed  poppy  seed  or  with 
wood;  but  if  they  were  once  removed,  they  shall  not  be  replaced 
unless  the  live  coals  were  taken  out  or  covered  with  ashes.  He 
was  of  the  opinion  that  our  Mishna  (treats)  of  replacing  (a  re- 
moved pot),  but  allows  (a  pot  that  was  not  removed)  to  be  left 
on  the  stove,  even  if  the  live  coals  arc  not  taken  out  or  covered 
with  ashes.  Said  Rabha:  "Were  not  both  (propositions)  ex- 
pounded in  the  Boraithoth  (that  were  cited)?"  Aye,  but  R. 
Shesheth  merely  wishes  to  exhibit  his  construction  of  the  text 
of  the  Mishna. 

R.  Samuel  b.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  said: 
Upon  a  stove  that  was  heated  with  pressed  poppy  seed  or  wood, 
victuals  may  be  left  standing,  if  they  are  sufficiently  warmed 
and  sufficiently  cooked,  even  if  shrivelling  improves  them.  Said 
one  of  the  schoolmen  to  him :  "  Did  not  Rabh  and  Samuel  both 
say  that  if  shrivelling  improves  them,  it  is  not  allowed  .'  And 
he  answered:  "  I  said  this  in  the  name  of  R,  Johanan  and  not 
in  the  name  of  the  above  mentioned,  as  I  am  aware  of  it."  R. 
Uqba  of  Mishan  said  to  R.  Ashi :  "  You,  who  cherish  the  teach- 
ings of  Rabh  and  Samuel,  may  follow  their  regulation,  but  we 
will  follow  the  regulation  of  R.  Johanan." 

Abayi  questioned  R.  Joseph :  May  victuals  be  left  (on  the 
stove)  ?  And  he  answered:  Did  not  R.  Jehudah  leave  (victuals 
on  the  stove),  and  eat  them  afterward  ?  Rejoined  Abayi: 
The  case  of  R.  Jehudah  cannot  be  taken  into  consideration. 
He  was  stricken  with  a  dangerous  disease,  and  for  him  even  (the 
cooking  of  victuals)  on  the  Sabbath  was  permitted;  but  I  ask 
about  (healthy  men  like)  you  and  me.  R.  Joseph  answered:  "In 
VOL.  I.— 5 


66  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

Sura  they  do  leave.  As  R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak,  who  was  ex- 
emplary in  following  religious  ordinances,  was  wont  to  leave  and 
to  eat." 

R.  Ashi  said:  "  I  was  standing  before  R.  Huna  and  observed 
that  fried  fish  was  kept  (warm)  for  him  and  he  ate  it ;  but  I 
know  not  whether  (he  did  it)  because  he  thought  that  victuals 
which  improve  by  shrivelling  are  allowed,  or  whether  he  thought 
that,  because  there  was  flour  on  his  fish,  continuous  warming 
did  not  improve  it. 

R.  Na'hman  said :  (Victuals)  that  improve  by  shrivelling  must 
not  (be  left  on  the  stove) ;  such  as  deteriorate  may.  The  rule 
is  that  all  victuals  which  contain  flour  deteriorate  by  continuous 
warming. 

R.  Hyya  b.  Ahba  was  questioned:  "If  one  forgot  his  pot 
and  left  it  upon  the  stove,  and  the  victuals  were  thus  cooked  on 
the  Sabbath,  may  he  eat  them  or  not  ?  "  The  master  gave  no 
answer.  The  next  time  he  lectured :  Victuals  cooked  on  the 
Sabbath  unintentionally  may  be  eaten ;  intentionally  not,  but 
(as  regards  the  pot  that  is  forgotten  on  the  stove)  it  makes  no 
difference. 

What  does  (the  phrase)  "  it  makes  no  difference"  mean  ? 
Rabba  and  R.  Joseph  both  say  that  the  phrase  implies  that  it 
may  be  eaten,  for  one  who  cooks  acts  intentionally;  but  when 
forgotten  there  was  no  act,  and  therefore  he  may  eat  it.  But 
R.  Na'hman  b.  Isaac  says  the  above  phrase  of  "  it  makes  no 
difference  "  implies  a  prohibition.  In  the  case  of  cooking  there 
is  no  fear  of  craft;  therefore  if  he  has  done  it  unintentionally, 
he  is  not  fined;  but  in  the  case  of  forgetting  (the  pot  in  the  fire) 
craft  may  be  feared  (it  means  that  he  may  put  it  in  intentionally 
saying  that  he  forgot),  and  therefore  even  if  he  actually  forgets 
he  is  not  allowed  to  eat  the  victuals. 

The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question :  "What  about  one 
who  had  intentionally  left  (his  victuals  upon  the  stove)  ?  Do 
the  rabbis  fine  him  or  not?"  Come  and  hear.  Samuel  b. 
Nathan  in  the  name  of  R.  Hanina  said:  "  When  R.  Jose  went 
to  Ziporis,  he  found  warm  meats  that  had  been  left  upon  the 
stove,  and  he  did  not  prohibit  their  use,  but  shrivelled  eggs  that 
had  been  left  upon  the  stove  he  prohibited.  Shall  we  not 
assume  that  he  forbade  their  use  even  on  that  Sabbath  as  a 
fine  ?     Nay,  he  forbade  their  use  for  the  following  Sabbath." 

From  this  is  to  be  inferred  that  shrivelled  eggs  improve  by 
continuous  heating.     As  R.  Hama  b.  Hanina  said:  "  Rabbi  and 


TRACT   SABBATH.  67 

I  were  once  stopping  at  a  certain  place.  We  were  treated  with 
eggs  shrivelled  like  wild  pears,  and  we  ate  many  of  them." 

" //  may  also  be  put  back.''  R.  Shesheth  said:  The  Tana 
who  holds  that  the  pot  may  also  be  put  back  (upon  the  stove) 
allows  this  (to  be  done)  even  on  the  Sabbath.  R.  Oshia  is  also 
of  the  same  opinion,  for  thus  he  said:  "  We  were  once  standing 
before  R.  Hyya  the  Great;  we  served  him  with  a  bowl  of  warm 
(soup),  which  was  brought  from  the  lower  floor  (of  the  house), 
and  we  mixed  a  cup  of  wine  for  him,  and  (afterward)  we  returned 
it  (the  bowl)  to  its  place,  and  he  said  nothing."  And  R.  Hyya 
in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  said:  Even  if  (the  warm  pot  taken 
off  from  the  stove)  was  put  upon  the  ground,  it  may  (still  be 
put  back  on  the  stove).  Said  Hyskiyah  in  the  name  of  Abayi: 
"  According  to  them  who  hold  that  if  he  puts  it  on  the  floor  it 
may  not  be  returned,  it  is  said  only  when  it  was  not  his  inten- 
tion to  return  it.  But  if  it  was,  he  may.  And  from  this  it  is 
to  be  inferred  that  if  it  was  still  in  his  hand,  although  his  inten- 
tion was  not  to  place  it  again,  he  may  do  so  on  reconsideration." 

MISHNA  //. :  (Victuals)  shall  not  be  put  either  inside  or  on 
top  of  an  oven  that  was  heated  with  straw  or  with  stubble;  a 
firing-pot  that  was  heated  with  straw  or  with  stubble  is  (con- 
sidered by  the  law)  as  a  stone,  but  if  it  was  heated  with  pressed 
poppy  seed  or  with  wood  it  is  considered  as  an  oven. 

GEMARA:  A  Boraitha  teaches:  If  an  oven  was  heated  with 
straw  or  with  stubble,  (a  pot  with  victuals)  shall  not  be  put  close 
to  it  (so  that  it  touch  the  oven),  the  less  so  upon  it,  and  still 
less  so  into  it;  so  much  the  less  shall  (a  pot)  be  put  (alongside  of 
an  oven)  that  was  heated  with  poppy-seed  pulp  or  with  wood. 
If  a  firing-pot  was  heated  with  straw  or  with  stubble,  (a  pot) 
may  be  put  close  to  it,  but  not  upon  it ;  with  poppy-seed  pulp 
or  with  wood  it  must  not  be  put  close  to  it.  Said  R.  Aha  b. 
Rabha  to  R.  Ashi:  "  How  shall  the  firing-pot  be  considered  ? 
If  it  is  like  a  stove,  even  if  heated  with  poppy-seed  pulp  or  with 
wood  (a  pot  shall  be  allowed  to  be  put  close  to  it) ;  and  if  it  is 
like  an  oven  it  should  not,  even  if  it  is  heated  with  stubble  or 
straw?"  Answered  he:  It  contains  more  heat  than  a  stove 
and  less  heat  than  an  oven. 

What  is  a  firing-pot  and  what  is  a  stove  ?  Said  R.  Jose  b. 
Hanina:  "  A  firing-pot  has  an  opening  on  the  top  upon  which 
only  one  pot  can  be  set ;  a  stove  has  openings  upon  which  two 
pots  can  be  set  at  a  time." 

MISHNA  ///.  :  An  egg  shall  not  be  put  close  to  a  boiler  to 


68  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

get  it  settled,  nor  must  it  be  wrapped  in  a  hot  cloth.  R.  Jose 
permits  it;  also  it  must  not  be  put  into  hot  sand  or  in  the  (hot) 
dust  of  the  road  that  it  be  roasted  (by  the  heat  of  the  sun).  It 
once  happened  that  the  inhabitants  of  Tiberias  had  laid  a  pipe 
of  cold  water  through  the  arm  of  their  hot  springs.  But  the 
sages  explained  to  them  that  on  the  Sabbath  this  water  is  con- 
sidered like  any  other  warmed  on  the  Sabbath,  and  must  not 
be  used  either  for  washing  or  drinking;  and  should  this  be  done 
on  a  feast  day,  it  is  like  water  heated  by  fire,  which  may  be  used 
for  drinking  only,  but  not  for  washing. 

GEMARA:  The  schoolmen  questioned:  How  is  it  if  one 
has  done  so  with  an  egg?  Said  R.  Joseph:  He  is  liable  for 
a  sin-offering.  Said  Mar  b.  Rabhina:  This  is  to  be  understood 
also  from  the  following  Boraitha:  Everything  that  was  in  hot 
water  before  the  Sabbath  may  be  soaked  in  hot  water  on  the 
Sabbath ;  things  that  were  not  in  hot  water  before  the  Sabbath 
may  only  be  rinsed  in  it,  excepting  old  herrings  and  Spanish 
(salted)  fish,  because  with  these,  rinsing  completes  their  prepara- 
tion. (The  same  is  the  case  with  an  egg;  the  settling  com- 
pletes.) 

"  Nor  shall  it  be  tvrappcd,''  etc.  Now,  the  Mishna  which 
states:  "  Cooked  victuals  may  be  put  into  a  pit  for  preserva- 
tion ;  drinking  water  into  cold  bad  water  to  cool ;  cold  victuals 
in  the  sun  to  warm."  Shall  we  assume  that  it  is  in  accordance 
with  R.  Jose  and  not  with  the  sages  ?  Said  R.  Na'hman:  As  to 
the  heat  of  the  sun,  all  agree  that  it  is  allowed ;  the  outcome  of 
heating  by  fire,  all  agree  that  it  is  prohibited.  The  point  of 
their  differing  is  the  outcome  of  sun-heating.  The  one  master 
holds  that  the  use  of  such  heat  Is  prohibited  for  fear  lest  one 
use  also  the  heat  that  is  generated  by  fire;  the  other  master 
does  not  impose  such  a  precautionary  measure. 

"  //  happened  that  the  inhabitants  of  Tiberias,''  etc.  R.  Hisda 
said :  With  the  prohibition  by  the  rabbis  of  the  act  of  the  Tibe- 
rians  they  have  also  abolished  the  permission  to  heat  on  Friday, 
even  when  it  is  yet  day,  in  such  places  as  increase  heat.  Said 
Ulla:  "The  Halakha  prevails  according  to  the  Tiberians." 
Rejoined  R.  Na'hman:  "  The  Tiberians  themselves  have  already 
destroyed  their  pipes,"  "  Washing  with  warm  water,"  how  is 
this  to  be  understood  ?  The  whole  body  ?  Is  this  prohibited 
only  with  water  that  was  warmed  on  Sabbath  ?  Is  it  not  the 
same  even  when  it  was  warmed  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath  ?  As  the 
following  Boraitha  states : ' '  With  water  which  was  warmed  on  the 


TRACT    SABI5ATII.  69 

eve  of  Sabbath,  on  the  morrow  one  may  wash  his  face,  hands, 
and  feet,  but  not  the  whole  body.  And  if  it  means  the  face, 
etc.,  how  is  the  latter  part  to  be  understood  ?"  "  If  it  was 
warmed  on  a  feast  day,"  etc. 

Shall  we  then  assume  that  our  Mishna  states  in  accordance 
with  Beth  Shamai,  as  they  so  state  plainly  elsewhere,  to 
which  the  Beth  Hillel  opposed  and  permitted  ?  Said  R.  lyqa 
b.  Hanina:  Our  Mishna  treats  of  washing  the  entire  body,  and  it 
is  in  accordance  with  the  Tana  of  the  following  Boraitha:  "  One 
shall  not  rinse  his  entire  body  (on  the  Sabbath)  either  with 
warm  or  with  cold  water."  So  is  the  decree  of  R.  Mair,  but 
R.  Simeon  permits  this.  R.  Hisda  says  their  dispute  concerns 
only  (water  that  is)  in  the  grounri  •,  hut  water  contained  in  a 
vessel  is  strictly  prohibited. 

Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  said:  "  The 
Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Jehudah."  Said  R.  Joseph 
to  him.  "  Didst  thou  hear  this  explicitly,  or  dost  thou  derive  it 
by  inference  (from  a  similar  teaching)  ?  "  "I  have  heard  it  ex- 
plicitly," he  answered. 

It  was  taught :  If  water  was  warmed  on  Friday,  Rabh  said 
one  may  wash  his  entire  body  in  it  on  the  next  day,  every  mem- 
ber separately  {i.e.,  not  plunge  into  it  at  once).  Samuel,  how- 
ever, said:  It  was  not  allowed  but  of  the  face,  hands,  and  feet. 
And  the  following  Boraitha  supports  Samuel:  "  If  water  was 
warmed  on  Friday,  one  may  wash  his  face,  hands,  and  feet  with 
it  on  the  following  day,  but  not  his  entire  body,  even  member 
by  member;  and  so  much  less  with  water  warmed  on  a  feast 
day." 

Said  R.  Joseph  to  Abayi :  "  Did  Rabba  not  act  according  to 
the  decisions  of  Rabh  ?"     "I  know  not,"  he  answered. 

The  rabbis  taught:  A  bath-house,  the  openings  of  which 
were  stopped  up  on  Friday  (so  that  the  heat  should  not  escape), 
may  be  used  for  bathing  immediately  after  the  Sabbath  is  over. 
If  its  openings  were  stopped  up  on  the  eve  of  a  feast  day,  one 
may,  on  the  next  day,  enter  it  to  have  a  sweat,  but  he  must 
leave  it  and  rinse  his  hands  in  an  adjoining  room.  R.  Jehudah 
said:  It  happened  in  a  bath-house  of  the  city  of  B'nai  Beraq, 
that  its  openings  w^ere  stopped  up  on  the  eve  of  a  feast  day. 
The  next  day  R.  Eliezer  b,  Azariah  and  R.  Aqiba  entered  it 
and  took  a  sweat ;  then  they  left  it  and  rinsed  their  bodies  in 
the  adjoining  room;  but  the  warm  water  in  it  had  been  covered 
with  boards.     When  the  report  of  this  reached  the  masters  they 


70  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

said,  even  if  the  warm  water  had  not  been  covered  with  boards, 
they  were  also  allowed  (to  do  so).  However,  since  transgress- 
ing began  to  increase,  they  began  to  prohibit.  In  bath-houses 
of  large  cities  one  may  walk  about  without  fear  of  people's  say- 
ing that  he  went  to  take  a  sweat. 

What  does  the  expression  "  transgressing"  mean  ?  As  R. 
Simeon  b.  Pazi  in  the  name  of  R.  Joshua  b.  Levi,  quoting  bar 
Qapara,  said:  In  former  times  the  people  were  accustomed  to 
bathe  (on  the  Sabbath)  in  water  that  was  warmed  on  Friday. 
The  bath-keepers  then  began  to  warm  the  water  on  the  Sab- 
bath, and  to  tell  the  people  that  it  had  been  warmed  on  Friday. 
Hereupon  they  prohibited  bathing  in  warm  water,  but  still  they 
placed  no  restriction  upon  taking  d  sweating  (in  the  batli-room). 
The  people  then  would  come  and  bathe,  but  pretend  to  merely 
take  a  sweating.  Then  sweating  was  also  prohibited,  but  wash- 
ing in  the  hot  spring  water  of  Tiberias  was  still  allowed.  The 
people,  however,  would  come  and  wash  themselves  in  water 
that  was  warmed  by  the  fire  and  say  that  they  washed  in  the 
hot  spring  water.  Subsequently  warm  water  was  prohibited  for 
bathing  altogether,  but  bathing  in  cold  water  was  allowed.  See- 
ing that  people  could  not  stand  the  last  prohibition,  it  was  there- 
fore revoked,  and  bathing  in  the  hot  spring  water  of  Tiberias 
was  allowed.  The  prohibition  of  the  sweating  bath,  however, 
remained.  The  rabbis  taught :  One  may  warm  himself  by  a 
hearth-fire  and  afterwards  rinse  himself  with  cold  water,  but  not 
bathe  first  in  cold  water  and  then  warm  himself  by  a  hearth-fire, 
because  he  warms  the  water  that  is  on  him. 

The  rabbis  taught :  One  may  warm  a  sponging-cloth  and  put 
it  upon  his  bowels  (on  the  Sabbath),  but  he  must  not  do  so  with 
a  boiling  hot  vessel,  for  this  is  dangerous  even  on  week  days. 

The  rabbis  taught :  One  may  put  a  pitcher  of  water  before 
a  blazing  fire,  not  to  warm  it,  but  to  temper  the  coldness  of  the 
water.  R.  Judah  said:  A  woman  may  put  an  oil  flask  before 
a  blazing  fire,  not  to  boil  it,  but  merely  to  temper  it.  R. 
Simeon  b.  Gamaliel  says:  A  woman  may  unhesitatingly  put  oil 
on  her  hand,  warm  it  before  the  fire,  and  anoint  her  little  son 
with  it  without  any  fear. 

Said  R.  Judah  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  Whether  it  be  oil  or 
water,  if  the  hand  is  spontaneously  withdrawn  from  it  (feeling 
the  scald)  it  is  prohibited,  but  not  otherwise.  And  what  extent 
of  heat  is  meant  by  it  ?  Said  Rabba :  If  the  belly  of  a  child  is 
scalded  by  it. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  71 

R.  Itz'hak  b.  Abhdimi  said:  "  I  once  followed  Rabbi  into 
the  bath-house  (on  the  Sabbath).  I  wanted  to  put  a  bottle  of 
oil  for  him  into  the  tank  (that  contained  hot  spring  water).  Said 
he  unto  me:  "  Take  out  some  warm  water  from  the  tank  and 
put  it  into  another  vessel  (to  warm  the  oil  in).  From  this  we 
have  inferred  three  things — viz.  :  First,  that  oil  improves  by 
warming,  and  it  is  a  prohibited  act;  second,  that  if  anything  is 
put  into  a  second  vessel  (not  directly  into  the  boiling  vessel)  it 
is  not  considered  cooking;  third,  that  the  mere  tempering  of 
oil  is  analogous  to  cooking  it. 

Said  Rabhina:  From  this  story  it  may  be  inferred  that  if 
one  cooks  in  the  hot  spring  water  of  Tiberias  on  the  Sabbath 
he  is  culpable,  for  the  case  happened  after  the  rabbis  had  im- 
posed the  precautionary  measure,  and  yet  Rabbi  would  not 
allow  him  (R.  Itz'hak)  to  put  the  oil  directly  into  the  tank.  Is 
that  so  ?  Did  not  R.  Hisda  say  that  he  who  has  cooked  in  the 
hot  spring  water  of  Tiberias  is  not  culpable  ?  The  culpability  to 
be  inferred  (from  the  case  of  Rabbi)  extends  only  as  far  as  blows 
of  correction  *  are  concerned. 

R.  Zera  said:  "  I  have  seen  R.  Abuhu  swimming  in  a  tank, 
and  I  know  not  whether  he  raised  (his  feet  from  the  ground)  or 
not.  Is  it  not  self-evident  that  he  did  not  raise  them,  as  there 
is  a  Boraitha:  One  shall  not  swim  about  in  a  pond,  even  if  (that 
pond)  is  stationed  in  a  yard.  This  presents  no  difificulty.  In  a 
pond  it  is  prohibited,  because  it  is  similar  to  a  river,  while  in  a 
tank  it  is  allowed,  because  it  is  similar  to  a  vessel. f 

R.  Zera  once  found  R.  Jehudah  in  the  bath.  He  (R.  Jehu- 
dah)  ordered  his  servant  (in  the  Hebrew  Aramaic  tongue): 
"  Bring  me  the  comb;  hand  me  the  soap;  open  your  mouths, 
and  exhale  the  warm  air  from  within  you ;  drink  of  the  (warm) 
water  of  the  bath."  Said  R.  Zera:  "  If  I  had  not  come  but  to 
hear  this,  it  were  enough  for  me." 

It  is  correct  that  he  ordered  things  in  the  Hebrew  language, 
as  private  affairs  may  be  said  in  the  same  language.  The  same 
is  with  the  second  order,  for  Samuel  said  that  heat  (from  with- 
out) drives  out  heat  (from  within).  But  what  good  is  in  the 
order,  "  Drink  of  the  water  of  the  bath  "  ?  It  is  also  correct,  as 
we  have  learned   in   the    following   Boraitha:  "If  one  washed 

*  "  Blows  of  correction"  were  inllicted  by  the  rabbis  not  for  .an  actual  sin,  but 
for  disobedience  to  the  laws  enacted. 

f  We  have  translated  in  accordance  with  Rasbi's  second  view,  as  it  seems  to  us  to 
be  correct. 


72  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

himself  with  warm  water  and  did  not  drink  of  it,  he  is  like  an 
oven  that  was  heated  from  without  but  not  from  within." 

MISHNA  /v.:  The  hot  water  contained  in  a  "  Muliar  " 
(caldron),  the  live  coals  of  which  have  been  cleared  away  before 
the  Sabbath  set  in,  may  be  used  on  the  Sabbath ;  but  the  hot 
water  contained  in  an  "  Antikhi  "  (another  kind  of  kettle),  even 
if  cleared  of  live  coals,  is  not  to  be  used  on  the  Sabbath. 

GEMARA:  What  is  a  Muliar?  A  Boraitha  states:  "It  is 
a  vessel  provided  with  an  attachment  for  live  coals,  used  for 
keeping  water";  as  for  an  Antikhi,  Rabba  says  it  is  a  Bekiri 
(a  vessel  similar  to  a  Muliar,  but  of  heavier  construction  and 
continually  in  use).  R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak  says:  It  is  a  Bedude 
(a  large  kettle  with  an  attachment  underneath  for  live  coals). 
There  is  a  Boraitha  in  support  of  the  opinion  of  R.  Na'hman: 
"  The  hot  water  in  an  Antikhi,  even  if  the  coals  thereof  are 
cleared  away  or  damped,  is  not  permitted  to  be  used,  for  the 
heavy  bottom  keeps  the  heat." 

MISHNA  V. :  Into  a  kettle,  the  hot  water  of  which  has 
been  spilt  out  and  which  has  been  removed  from  the  fire,  cold 
water  is  not  permitted  to  be  poured,  for  the  purpose  of  heating; 
but  it  is  permitted  to  pour  water  into  the  kettle,  or  into  a  cup, 
for  the  purpose  of  making  such  water  lukewarm. 

GEMARA:  How  is  this  to  be  understood  ?  Said  Abayi:  It 
means  thus:  "  Into  a  kettle,  the  fire  of  which  has  been  removed, 
which  still  contains  hot  water,  a  small  quantity  of  cold  water 
may  not  be  poured,  for  the  purpose  of  warming;  but  a  large 
quantity,  to  make  the  hot  water  lukewarm  is,  however,  per- 
mitted. Into  a  kettle,  the  hot  water  of  which  has  been  entirely 
removed,  no  cold  water  at  all  may  be  poured,  because  it  tem- 
pers the  vessel.  And  it  is  in  accordance  with  R.  Jehudah,  who 
holds  that  an  act  which  pleases  one,  if  done  even  unintentionally, 
is  prohibited. 

Said  Rabh  :  "  Even  the  above-mentioned  large  quantity  is 
allowed  only  to  make  the  water  lukewarm  ;  but  not  such  a  quan- 
tity as  will  entirely  neutralize  the  hot  water  and  tend  to  temper 
the  vessel."     Samuel,  however,  permits  any  quantity. 

Shall  we  assume  that  Samuel  is  in  accordance  with  R.  Simeon 
(who  opposes  the  above  theory  of  R.  Jehudah),  but  did  he  not 
.say  that  it  is  permitted  to  extinguish  live  dross  on  public  ground 
(to  prevent  injury),  but  not  charcoal  ?  And  if  he  agrees  with 
R.  Simeon,  this  also  should  be  permitted  ?  As  regards  labor 
tending  to  the  accomplishment   of  a  work  (prohibited  on  the 


TRACT    SABBATH.  73 

Sabbath),  he  holds  with  R,  Simeon;  but  as  to  the  performance 
of  labor,  not  for  its  own  sake,  he  sides  with  R.  Jchudah,  Said 
Rabina :  "  Since  it  is  permitted  to  perform  labor  (prohibited  by 
rabbinical  law),  in  order  to  prevent  injury,  it  is  also  permitted 
to  remove  thorns  from  public  ground,  little  by  little,  in  dis- 
tances of  less  than  four  ells  at  a  time  (in  order  to  prevent 
injury) ;  but  upon  unclaimed  ground  it  may  be  done  in  greater 
distances." 

''But  it  is  permitted,"  etc.  The  rabbis  taught:  One  may 
pour  hot  water  upon  cold,  but  not  cold  upon  hot  water,  so  is 
the  decree  of  Beth  Shamai ;  Beth  Hillel,  however,  allows  both 
ways,  provided  a  cup  is  used ;  but  in  a  bathing-tub  hot  water 
upon  cold  is  permitted,  but  cold  water  upon  warm  is  not.  But 
R.  Simeon  b.  Menassiah  forbids  it.  And  Na'hman  said  that  so 
the  Halakha  prevails.  R.  Joseph  was  about  to  say  that  a 
bucket  is  under  the  same  ruling  as  a  bathing-tub.  Said  Abayi 
to  him:  "  So  taught  R.  Hyya,  that  a  bucket  is  not  in  this 
category." 

Said  R.  Huna  b.  R.  Joshua:  "  I  observed  that  Rabha  was 
not  scrupulous  with  regard  to  the  use  of  vessels,  because  R. 
Hyya  taught,  one  may  put  a  pitcher  of  water  into  a  bucket  ot 
water;  it  makes  no  difference  whether  it  be  hot  water  into  cold 
or  vice  versa.' '  Said  R.  Huna  to  R.  Ashi:  "  Perhaps  this  was 
a  different  case  altogether,  it  being  that  there  was  a  vessel  within 
a  vessel ! ' '  But  the  latter  retorted  :  "  It  says :  '  To  empty  ' ;  as 
it  was  taught:  It  is  permitted  to  empty  out  a  pitcher  of  water 
into  a  bucket  of  water,  be  it  either  warm  water  into  cold  or  vice 
versa. 

MISHNA  VI.  :  In  a  saucepan  or  a  pot  that  was  removed 
from  the  fire,  no  spices  shall  be  put  after  dusk  (on  Friday);  but 
spices  may  be  put  into  a  plate  or  a  bowl.  R.  Jehudah  is  of  the 
opinion  that  spices  may  be  put  in  all  vessels  or  cooking  utensils 
except  in  such  as  contain  vinegar  or  fish  brine. 

GEMARA:  The  schoolmen  propounded  the  following  ques- 
tion: Does  R.  Jehudah  refer  to  the  first  part  of  the  Mishna, 
which  is  lenient,  or  does  he  refer  to  the  latter  part,  which  is 
rigorous  ?  Come  and  hear.  We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha 
that  R.  Jehudah  says:  "One  may  put  (spices)  into  all  sauce- 
pans and  cooking-pots,  except  such  as  contain  vinegar  and  fish 
brine." 

R.  Joseph  was  about  to  say  that  salt  comes  under  the  same 
ruling  as  spices,  because  in  his  opinion  salt  becomes  cooked  in  a 


74  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

first  vessel  {i.e.,  the  vessel  used  for  cooking),  but  not  in  a  second 
vessel.  Said  Abayi  to  him:  R.  Hyya  distinctly  taught  that 
salt  does  not  come  under  the  ruling  applicable  to  spices,  because 
it  does  not  become  cooked,  even  in  a  first  vessel.  This  is  cor- 
roborated by  R.  Na'hman,  who  said:  There  is  a  saying  that  the 
dissolving  of  salt  requires  thorough  boiling,  the  same  as  beef. 

MISHNA  VII. :  It  is  not  permitted  to  place  a  vessel  under 
a  lamp  so  that  the  oil  of  the  lamp  drip  into  it.  If  a  vessel  was 
placed  under  a  lamp  before  the  Sabbath  set  in,  it  may  remain 
there;  but  the  use  of  such  oil  on  the  same  Sabbath  is  not  per- 
mitted, as  it  was  not  previously  prepared. 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Hisda:  "  Although  it  was  said  that  the 
placing  of  a  vessel  under  a  hen  (laying  on  sloping  ground)  to 
receive  the  egg  is  forbidden,  yet  to  cover  the  egg  so  as  to  pre- 
vent it  from  being  crushed  is  permitted." 

Said  Rabba:  The  reason  of  R.  Hisda  is  because  he  holds 
that  hens  being  in  the  habit  of  laying  eggs  on  level  ground,  in 
order  to  prevent  the  egg  from  being  stepped  upon,  it  is  per- 
mitted to  cover  it  with  a  vessel ;  but  as  hens  are  not  in  the  habit 
of  laying  eggs  on  sloping  ground,  the  placing  of  a  vessel  under 
the  hen  to  receive  the  egg  was  not  allowed. 

Abayi  objected  to  this,  stating:  "  Were  we  not  taught  in 
the  Mishna  that  it  is  permitted  to  place  a  vessel  under  a  lamp 
in  order  to  take  up  the  (dropping)  sparks?"  (This  seldom 
occurs  and  therefore  it  is  permitted.)  He  was  told  that  the 
dropping  of  sparks  by  a  lamp  is  also  of  frequent  occurrence. 

R.  Joseph,  commenting  on  the  statement  of  R.  Hisda,  gave 
another  reason — viz. :  That  the  vessel  (placed  under  a  hen  to 
receive  an  eg^  is  made  useless  for  that  same  Sabbath. 

Abayi  raised  the  same  objection,  (intending  to)  prove  by  it 
that  the  vessel  placed  under  a  lamp  is  also  made  useless  on  that 
same  Sabbath,  and  R.  Huna  b.  R.  Joshua  answered :  "  Sparks 
have  nothing  substantial  about  them  (therefore  the  vessel  con- 
taining them  is  not  made  useless  on  the  same  Sabbath)." 

R.  Itz'hak  said:  In  the  same  manner  as  it  is  not  permitted 
to  place  a  vessel  under  a  laying  hen,  so  is  it  also  not  permitted 
to  cover  the  egg  laid;  for  the  reason  that  a  vessel  must  not  be 
handled  on  the  Sabbath  except  for  the  use  of  such  things  as  are 
themselves  permitted  to  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath. 

All  the  objections  of  Abayi  being  raised  against  R.  Itz'hak's 
statements,  he  answered:  "  In  that  case  there  was  a  lack  of 
space."     (If  the  space  occupied  by  a  vessel  is  needed,  that  ves- 


TRACT    SABBATH.  75 

sel  may  be  removed,  and  while  being  removed  may  be  used  for 
any  purpose.) 

Come  and  hear  (another  objection).  An  egg  laid  on  the  Sab- 
bath or  a  festival,  to  prevent  it  from  being  (accidentally)  cracked, 
may  be  covered  with  a  vessel  ?  Here  the  case  is,  also,  when 
the  space  where  the  vessel  is  placed  is  needed. 

Said  R.  Shcsheth  (to  his  disciples):  Go  ye  and  tell  R.  Itz'hak 
that  the  above  doctrine  has  already  been  interpreted  by  R.  Huna 
in  Babylon  as  follows:  It  is  permitted  to  make  a  partition  on 
the  Sabbath,  to  (isolate)  a  corpse  for  the  sake  of  the  living,  but 
it  is  not  permitted  to  make  a  partition  for  the  sake  of  the  corpse. 
How  is  the  latter  clause  to  be  understood  ?  R.  Samuel  b. 
Jehudah  and  also  Shila  Mari  taught:  In  the  case  of  a  corpse 
lying  in  the  sun  (on  the  Sabbath),  (to  prevent  the  corpse  from 
decomposing)  two  persons  are  brought  to  sit  on  the  floor,  each 
on  one  side  (in  order  to  bring  about  the  making  of  a  screen). 
When  the  ground  underneath  them  becomes  hot,  each  of  them 
is  to  bring  a  cot  bed  to  sit  upon,  and  when  the  heat  above  them 
becomes  excessive,  they  are  to  bring  a  sheet  and  spread  it  over 
their  heads  (leaving  part  of  the  sheet  loose) ;  both  now  raise 
their  cots  (which  take  up  the  loose  part  of  the  sheet)  and  move 
to  their  former  positions;  thus  a  screen  (canopy)  is  formed  of 
itself. 

It  was  taught:  "  A  corpse  lying  in  the  sun."  R.  Jehudah 
in  the  name  of  Samuel  says:  The  same  must  be  turned  over 
from  one  bed  into  another,  until  it  arrives  at  a  shady  place. 
R.  Hinna  b.  Shalmi  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said:  A  loaf  of  bread 
or  an  infant  should  be  put  on  the  corpse  and  then  the  corpse 
may  be  moved.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
removal  of  a  corpse  (on  the  Sabbath),  which  is  permitted  when 
a  loaf  or  an  infant  is  put  upon  it;  they  differ  only  where  there 
is  none.  One  holds  that  indirect  transportation  must  be  con- 
sidered transportation,  and  the  other  opines  that  indirect  trans- 
portation is  not  transportation  (and  therefore  permitted). 

Shall  we  assume  that  on  this  point  the  following  Tanaim 
differ?  "It  is  not  permitted  to  save  a  corpse  from  a  fire." 
R.  Jehudah  b.  Lakish,  however,  says:  "  I  have  heard  that  it 
may  be  done."  How  is  the  case  if  there  was  a  loaf  of  bread  or 
an  infant  ?  Why  should  the  first  Tana  prohibit  it  ?  And  if 
there  was  none,  what  is  the  reason  of  Lakish's  decision  ?  Do 
they  not  differ  in  the  point  of  transportation  stated  above  ? 
Nay;   all  agree  that  such  a  transportation  is  considered;    the 


76  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

reason,  however,  of  Ben  Lakish  is  that  usually  one  is  concerned 
about  his  dead,  and  if  it  would  not  be  permitted  to  remove  it, 
he  will  extinguish  the  fire.  Said  R.  Jehudah  b.  Shilah  in  the 
name  of  R.  Ashi,  quoting  R.  Johanan:  The  Halakha  prevails 
according  to  Ben  Lakish  concerning  a  corpse. 

MISHNA  VIII.:  A  new  lamp  may  be  handled  on  the  Sab- 
bath, but  not  an  old  one;  R.  Simeon,  however,  says  all  lamps 
are  permitted  to  be  handled  except  such  as  are  still  burning. 

GEMARA:  The  rabbis  taught:  Anew  lamp  may  be  han- 
dled, but  not  an  old  one;  such  is  the  decree  of  R.  Jehudah. 

R.  Mair,  however,  says  that  all  lamps  may  be  moved,  except 
a  lamp  which  was  lit  for  the  Sabbath  (though  the  light  is  extin- 
guished); but  R.  Simeon  says,  except  a  lamp  which  is  still  burn- 
ing. If  extinguished,  it  may  be  moved ;  but  a  goblet,  bowl,  or 
lantern  (used  as  lamps,  must  not  be  removed  from  their  respec- 
tive places).  R.  Eliezer  b.  R.  Simeon,  says:  It  is  permitted  to 
make  use  of  an  extinguished  lamp  and  of  the  oil  dripping  from 
it,  even  while  the  lamp  is  burning. 

Said  Abayi :  R.  Eliezer  b.  Simeon  holds  in  one  case  to  the 
opinion  of  his  father,  but  differs  with  him  in  the  other.  He 
holds  with  his  father  in  disregarding  Muktza  (designation),*  and 
differs  with  him  in  the  other  case ;  for  his  father  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that  when  a  lamp  is  extinguished  it  may  be  moved,  but  not 
while  it  is  burning;  but  he  is  of  the  opinion  that  even  a  burning 
lamp  may  be  moved.  "  But  a  goblet,  bowl,  or  lantern  must 
not."  Wherein  do  these  things  differ  from  the  others  ?  Said 
Mar  Zutra:  R.  Simeon  allows  a  small  lamp  (to  be  handled), 
because  one  will  wait  until  it  is  extinguished  (and  then  it  may 
be  used  for  another  purpose) ;  but  these  are  large,  and  not  apt 
to  become  extinguished  for  some  time.  R.  Zera  said :  All  the 
schoolmen  agree  on  prohibiting  the  handling  of  a  candelabrum 
which  had  been  lit  up  on  Sabbath,  but  the  handling  of  the  can- 
delabrum which  was  not  lit  up  on  the  Sabbath  is  unanimously 
permitted. 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said:  "  It  is  not  permitted 
to  handle  a  bed  that  has  been  designated  as  a  place  to  put 
money  in,  if  the  money  had  already  previously  been  placed  upon 
it  (on  Friday  during  twilight  even  if  on  the  Sabbath  710  money 

*  Muktza  (designation)  refers  to  such  objects  as  are  set  aside  and  designated  for 
non-use  on  the  Sabbath.  Thus,  all  materials  that  are  used  in  the  performance  of 
manual  labor  (prohibited  on  the  Sabbath)  are  called  Muktza.  R.  Simeon,  however, 
holds  there  is  no  such  thing  as  Muktza. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  77 

was  on  the  bed).  If  the  money,  however,  had  not  previously 
been  deposited  on  the  bed,  the  handling  is  permitted.  If  a  bed 
was  not  designated  for  the  keeping  of  money,  but  contained 
money,  it  must  not  be  handled.  If  it  contained  no  monoy,  it 
may  (providing  no  money  was  deposited  on  the  bed  during  twi- 
light of  the  preceding  Friday).  And  Rabh  says  this  because  he 
holds  with  R.  Jehudah  concerning  Muktza. 

And  it  seems  that  so  is  the  case,  as  Rabh  said  one  may  place 
a  lamp  upon  a  palm  tree  at  any  time  while  it  is  yet  day  on 
Friday,  in  order  that  it  may  burn  on  the  Sabbath;  but  one  may 
not  put  a  lamp  upon  the  same  on  a  biblical  feast  day.  (It  is 
permitted  to  place  a  lamp  on  a  palm  tree  on  the  Sabbath 
because  there  is  no  fear  of  the  tree,  which  is  Muktza  [desig- 
nated], being  used;  but  on  a  biblical  feast  day  it  is  prohibited 
for  fear  that  one  while  depositing  or  removing  the  lamp  will 
also  use  the  palm  tree;  and  that  is  prohibited.) 

And  this  is  correct  only  in  accordance  with  the  theory  of 
R.  Jehudah ;  but  should  Rabh  hold  with  R.  Simeon,  why  docs 
he  make  a  distinction  between  the  Sabbath  and  a  biblical  feast 
day  ?  The  law  of  Muktza  does  not  exist  at  all  according  to 
R.  Simeon. 

Is  that  so  ?  Did  not  Rabh  decide,  when  he  was  questioned 
whether  one  may  remove  an  extinguished  'Hanukah  light  on  the 
Sabbath  for  fear  of  the  Magi  (this  has  already  been  mentioned 
in  a  previous  connection),  that  it  may  be  done  ?  The  time  of 
danger  is  different.*  R.  Kahana  and  R.  Assi  then  questioned 
him:  "Does  the  Halakha  so  prevail?"  and  he  answered: 
R.  Simeon  is  worthy  to  be  relied  upon  in  times  of  danger." 

Resh  Lakish  questioned  R.  Johanan :  "  May  wheat  that  has 
been  sown  but  that  has  not  yet  sprouted,  or  eggs  that  are  still 
under  the  hen,  be  eaten  on  the  Sabbath  ?  Does  he  (R.  Simeon) 
disregard  the  law  of  Muktza  only  in  such  cases  where  the  objects 
were  put  aside  with  no  intention  of  ever  being  used  again,  or 
does  he  disregard  Muktza  under  all  circumstances?"  lie  (R. 
Johanan)  replied:  "  There  is  no  Muktza  in  his  theory  but  the 
oil  in  a  burning  lamp,  because  if  poured  in  a  lamp  for  the  pur- 
pose of  keeping  the  Sabbath-light  commandment  it  is  designated 
for  that  express  function,  and  as  it  is  not  permitted  to  extin- 
guish that  light,  the  intention  not  to  use  the  oil  for  any  other 
purpose  is  self-evident.     But  does  not  R.  Simeon  hold  that  the 

*   riie  Talmud  here  refers  to   Persian  festivals,  when  the  burning  of  lights  was 
prohibited  except  in  sacred  shrines. 


78  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

same  is  the  case  with  other  things  which  were  designated  for 
their  religious  purposes  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  ornaments  of 
the  tabernacle  on  that  festival  must  not  be  used,  even  in  accord- 
ance with  R.  Simeon's  theory  ?  As  R.  Hyj^a  b.  R.  Joseph 
taught  in  the  presence  of  R.  Johanan:  "  One  must  not  remove 
wood  from  a  booth  on  any  biblical  feast  day,  but  he  may  remove 
it  from  any  place  near  by  ?  R.  Simeon,  however,  permits  this 
to  be  done.  Still,  they  all  agree  that  wood  must  not  be 
removed  from  a  booth  built  expressly  for  that  feast,  on  all  the 
seven  feast  days.  However,  if  there  was  a  stipulation  it  may  be 
done  accordingly  "  (because  the  wood  is  set  aside  for  the  ritual 
purpose).  Hence  even  according  to  him  the  designation  for 
ritual  purposes  must  not  be  used.  Why,  then,  is  this  different 
from  the  oil  in  question  ?  The  Boraitha  is  to  be  understood 
thus :  All  the  ornaments  of  the  booth  in  question  are  prohibited 
so  far  as  all  things  bearing  similitude  to  the  oil  in  the  burning 
lamp  are  concerned.  And  so  also  it  was  taught  by  R.  Hyya  b. 
Abba  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan,  that  there  is  no  Muktza  in 
the  theory  of  R.  Simeon,  but  in  cases  which  are  similar  to  the 
oil  of  the  lamp  while  burning,  being  designated  for  the  ritual 
purpose,  they  are  also  designated  not  to  be  used.  Said  R. 
Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  "  In  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon 
no  law  of  Muktza  exists  except  in  the  case  of  raisins  and  dates 
which  were  placed  on  the  roof  to  be  dried."  (In  such  a  case 
there  certainly  was  no  intention  to  use  them  on  the  same  Sab- 
bath.) Said  Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  : 
"  It  was  said  the  law  remains  in  accordance  with  R.  Simeon. 
When  R.  Itz'hak  b.  R.  Joseph,  however,  came  from  Palestine, 
he  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  that  the  law  (of  Muktza) 
according  to  R.  Jehudah  prevails,  and  R.  Jehoshua  b.  Levi  said 
the  law  prevails  with  R.  Simeon.  Said  R.  Joseph :  Now  is 
understood  what  Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  said  in  name  of  R.  Johanan, 
it  was  said  that  the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Simeon, 
which  means  that  R.  Johanan  himself  did  not  agree  with  their 
decision.  Said  Abayi  to  R.  Joseph:  "Didst  thou  not  know 
before  this  that  R.  Johanan  holds  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Jehu- 
dah ?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  when  R.  Abba  and  R.  Assi  met  in 
the  house  of  R.  Abba  of  the  city  of  Heifa  and  a  candelabrum 
fell  upon  the  coat  of  R.  Assi,  he  (R.  Assi)  did  not  remove  it  ? 
Was  it  not  because  he  was  a  disciple  of  R.  Johanan  and  acted 
according  to  the  opinion  of  his  master  ?  "  Answered  R.  Joseph: 
"  Thou  art  speaking  of  a  candelabrum.     A  candelabrum  is  a 


TRACT    SABBATH.  79 

different  matter  altogether,  for  R.  Ahai  b.  Hanina  in  the  name 
of  R.  Assi  said:  Resh  Lakish  has  decided  in  Zidon,  a  candela- 
brum which  can  be  removed  with  one  hand  may  be  handled,  but 
if  it  has  to  be  removed  with  both  hands  it  may  not ;  and  R. 
Johanan  said :  We  only  hold  with  R.  Simeon  in  the  matter  of 
a  lamp;  but  as  for  a  candelabrum,  whether  it  can  be  removed 
with  one  or  both  hands,  it  is  prohibited.  And  why  so  ?  Both 
Rabba  and  R.  Joseph  said :  Because  a  separate  place  must  be 
designated  for  it. 

Said  Abayi  to  R,  Joseph:  "  Have  we  not  observed  the  case 
of  a  baldaquin  prepared  for  a  bride  and  groom,  for  which  a  place 
must  be  designated  ?  And  yet  Samuel  said  in  the  name  of 
R.  Hyya  that  such  may  be  put  up  and  taken  apart  on  the  Sab- 
bath. ' '  Said  Abayi :  The  prohibition  to  handle  the  candelabrum 
holds  good  only  in  a  case  where  the  same  is  made  of  several 
parts.  If  this  be  the  case,  what  reason  has  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish 
for  allowing  this?  Say:  Not  a  candelabrum  made  of  various 
parts,  but  if  it  looks  like  a  candelabrum  of  various  parts.  There- 
fore a  candelabrum  made  of  several  parts,  be  it  large  or  small, 
must  not  be  handled.  The  handling  of  a  large  candelabrum, 
even  if  not  made  of  several  parts,  is  also  prohibited  on  account 
of  its  marked  lines,  for  fear  one  may  handle  such  as  are  made 
of  several  parts.  And  the  point  of  their  differing  is:  With  a 
small  candelabrum  which  looks  as  if  made  of  several  parts,  one 
takes  the  precautionary  measure  lest  one  handle  that  which  is 
really  made  of  several  parts,  while  the  other  does  not  care  for 
such  a  precaution. 

R.  Malkia  chanced  to  be  in  the  house  of  R.  Simlai  and 
handled  a  candlestick,  the  light  in  which  had  been  extinguished, 
and  R.  Simlai  became  angry  on  that  account.  R.  Jose  the 
Galilean  happened  to  be  in  the  town  of  R.  Jose  b.  Hanina  and 
did  the  same,  whereupon  R.  Jose  b.  Hanina  became  angr>'. 
R.  Abuhu,  however,  when  he  happened  to  be  in  the  place  of 
R.  Jehoshua  b.  Levi,  handled,  but  when  he  came  to  the  place 
of  R.  Johanan  he  did  not  handle  a  candlestick  in  question  out  of 
respect  to  R.  Johanan.  R.  Jehudah  said :  A  lamp  which  has 
been  filled  with  oil  may  be  handled  after  the  light  has  been 
extinguished  (because  it  emits  no  bad  odor),  but  one  which  con- 
tained naphtha  may  not  be  handled  (on  account  of  its  bad  odor). 
Both  Rabba  and  R.  Joseph  also  permit  this. 

R.  Avia  once  came  to  the  house  of  Rabha  with  muddy  shoes 
and  sat  on  the  bed  in  the  presence  of  the  latter.     This  made 


8o  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Rabha  angry,  and  he  tried  to  disconcert  R.  Avia  with  questions. 
Said  he  (Rabha):  "  Can  you  tell  me  why  Rabba  and  R.  Joseph 
both  said  that  a  lamp  filled  with  naphtha  may  be  handled?" 
Answered  R.  Avia:  "  The  reason  of  their  decision  is  because 
the  lamp  is  fit  to  cover  a  vessel  with  after  being  extinguished." 
And  he  rejoined:  "  If  this  is  so,  one  may  also  handle  shavings 
scattered  in  the  yard,  because  they  also  can  be  used  to  cover 
a  vessel  with."  Answered  R.  Avia:  "  A  lamp,  being  a  vessel 
itself,  can  be  used  to  cover  other  things  with,  but  shavings  are 
not  vessels  in  themselves  and  therefore  cannot  be  used  singly  as 
covers  "  (and  brought  a  Boraitha  which  states  that  nose  jewels, 
rings,  etc.,  are  considered  among  the  vessels  which  may  be 
handled  on  Sabbath,  and  Ulla  explained  the  reason  why,  because 
they  are  considered  as  vessels).  Said  R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak: 
"  Praised  be  the  Lord  that  Rabha  did  not  put  R.  Avia  to 
shame." 

Abayi  pointed  out  to  R.  Joseph  the  following  contradiction : 
"  Did  R.  Simeon  say  that  a  light  maybe  handled  only  when 
extinguished,  but  if  burning  it  must  not  be  handled  ?  For  what 
reason  ?  Because  there  is  a  chance  of  extinguishing  it  while  it 
is  being  handled  ?  "  Have  we  not  learned  that  R.  Simeon  said : 
"  An  act  which  is  committed  unintentionally  is  permissible." 
Such  is  the  decision  of  R.  Simeon  ?  (This  presents  no  diffi- 
culty.) One  must  not  take  chances  with  an  act  which,  if  done 
intentionally,  would  cause  a  violation  of  a  biblical  ordinance; 
but  if  the  violation  would  be  only  that  of  a  rabbinical  ordinance, 
chances  may  be  taken. 

Objected  Rabha:  "  We  have  learned :  Dealers  in  clothing  may 
sell  clothes  made  of  wool  and  cotton  mixed.  They  are  per- 
mitted to  try  on  such  clothes  or  to  carry  them  (temporarily)  on 
their  shoulders,  provided  the  intention  to  use  them  as  a  protec- 
tion against  the  sun  and  rain  does  not  exist.  Now,  the  wearing 
of  a  mixture  of  wool  and  cotton  is  biblically  prohibited,  still 
R.  Simeon  permits  it  to  be  done  temporarily.  Therefore  said 
Rabha:  "  Discard  the  case  of  the  lamp,  oil,  and  wick;  there  is 
another  reason  entirely — viz.,  because  one  becomes  a  basis  of 
a  thing  the  handling  of  whch  is  in  itself  prohibited  {i.e.,  the 
light  in  itself  cannot  be  handled)." 

Said  R.  Zera  in  the  name  of  R.  Assi,  quoting  R.  Johanan, 
who  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Hanina  that  he  was  told  by  R. 
Romnas:  "  Rabbi  permitted  me  to  handle  a  pan  containing 
glowing  ashes." 


TRACT    SABBATH.  8i 

And  R.  Zera himself  was  deliberating:  Did  indeed  R.  Johanan 
say  so  ?  Have  we  not  heard  that  Rabba  b.  b.  liana  said  in  his 
(R.  Johanan's)  name,  referring  to  our  Mishna,  which  states  that 
a  man  may  handle  a  box  containing  a  stone:  "  He  may  do  so 
providing  the  box  also  contains  fruit."  How,  then,  could  R. 
Johanan  permit  a  pan  with  glowing  ashes  to  be  handled  ?"  R. 
Assi  was  astounded  for  some  time,  but  finally  answered:  "  The 
pan  referred  to  still  contained  some  grains  of  incense." 

But  Rabha  said:  While  we  were  in  R.  Na'hman's  house  we 
handled  a  fire-pot  on  account  of  its  ashes  (the  ashes  were  needed 
for  some  purpose,  therefore  the  pot  was  allowed  to  be  handled), 
although  there  were  some  broken  sticks  of  wood  upon  it. 

The  schoolmen  raised  the  following  objection:  R.  Simeon 
and  R.  Jehudah  agree  that  if  there  are  broken  pieces  of  wick  in 
a  lamp,  it  is  prohibited  to  handle  the  lamp.  Said  Abayi :  ' '  This 
was  taught  in  Galilea  "  (Galilea  is  a  state  where  linen  cloth  is 
scarce,  for  which  reason  the  broken  pieces  of  wick  are  valuable, 
and  the  lamp,  being  the  receptacle  of  prohibited  valuables,  is 
not  permitted  to  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath). 

Levi,  the  son  of  Samuel,  met  R.  Abba  and  R.  Huna  the 
son  of  Hyya  standing  at  the  entrance  of  R.  Huna's  house;  and 
Levi  questioned:  "Is  it  allowed  to  fold  the  beds  of  travelling 
coppersmiths  on  a  Sabbath?"  They  answered:  "Yea."  In 
allowing  this  the  two  rabbis  held  with  (the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon 
b.  Gamaliel  in  a)  following  Boraitha:  It  is  not  permitted  to  put 
together  a  bed  which  has  been  taken  apart;  but  if  one  did  so, 
he  is  not  culpable.  One  must  not  fasten  the  bed  with  pegs, 
but  if  he  did  so  he  only  lays  himself  liable  to  bring  a  sin-offer- 
ing. R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel,  however,  said:  "  If  the  bed  was 
loose  it  may  be  fastened." 

R.  Hama  had  a  folding-bed  in  his  house.  He  put  it  together 
on  a  biblical  feast  day,  and  one  of  the  young  rabbis  questioned 
Rabha  :  "  What  reason  is  to  be  found  for  this  act  ?  Is  it  because 
of  indirect  building;  granted  that  there  is  no  biblical  prohibition 
to  this  effect,  there  surely  is  a  rabbinical  ?  "  Answered  Rabha: 
"  I  think  that  the  reason  is  the  decision  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Gama- 
liel (with  whom  I  agree)  that  it  is  permissible  to  put  a  bed 
together  if  the  bed  is  loose." 

MISHNA  IX. :  One  may  put  a  vessel  underneath  a  lamp  for 
the  purpose  of  receiving  the  sparks  falling  from  the  lamp,  but 
he  shall  \.ot  put  water  into  the  vessel,  because  thereby  the 
sparks  would  become  extinguished. 

VOL.    I.— 6 


82  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

GEMARA:  Would  this  act  not  render  the  vessel  useless? 
Said  R.  Huna  the  son  of  R.  Jehoshua:  "The  vessel  is  not 
made  useless,  because  sparks  do  not  amount  to  anything." 

"  He  shall  not  put  any  water  into  it,''  etc.  Shall  we  assume 
that  this  anonymous  Mishna  is  in  accordance  with  R.  Jose,  who 
said  that  it  is  prohibited  even  to  cause  light  to  be  extinguished  ? 
How  can  you  explain  this  in  this  way  ?  R.  Jose  spoke  of  the 
Sabbath  itself;  have  you  heard  him  saying  so  about  the  eve  of 
Sabbath  ?  And  should  you  say  that  here  is  also  meant  on  Sab- 
bath itself,  there  is  a  Boraitha  which  states  plainly:  A  vessel 
may  be  put  under  the  lamp  to  receive  sparks  on  Sabbath,  and 
so  much  the  more  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath ;  but  water  must  not 
be  put  in,  even  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath,  and  much  less  on  the 
Sabbath  itself.  Therefore  said  R.  Ashi :  "  It  may  be  said  that 
it  is  in  accordance  even  with  the  rabbis,  who  do  not  mind  the 
causing  of  light  to  be  extinguished  through  indirect  means  on 
the  Sabbath.  In  this  case,  however,  the  sparks  are  extinguished 
(through  direct  means,  i.e^  by  placing  water  underneath  the 
lamp." 


CHAPTER   IV. 

REGULATIONS    CONCERNING     VICTUALS,    WHERE    THEY     MAY    OR    MAY 
NOT    BE    DEPOSITED    TO    RETAIN    THEIR    HEAT    FOR    THE   SABBATH. 

MISHNA  /. :  Wherein  may  hot  vessels  be  deposited  (to 
retain  the  heat)  and  wherein  may  they  not  ?  Depositing  in 
Gepheth  (olive  waste),  dung,  salt,  lime,  and  sand,  either  wet  or 
dry,  is  not  allowed.  In  straw,  grape-skins,  wool-flocks,  or  grass 
it  is  permitted,  provided  they  are  dry,  but  not  when  they  are 
still  wet. 

GEMARA:  A  question  was  propounded:  "  Is  the  use  of  olive 
waste  only  prohibited,  but  the  use  of  the  oil-cakes  allowed ;  or 
does  the  Mishna  allude  to  oil-cakes  and  still  more  so  to  olive 
waste  (for  it  produces  more  heat)?"  For  the  purpose  of  de- 
positing in,  both  kinds  are  not  allowed;  (but  if  the  victuals  have 
been  deposited  in  a  permissible  thing  and  were  subsequently 
placed  on  oil-cakes  no  wrong  was  done,  because)  oil-cake  does 
not  produce  heat;  olive  waste  produces  heat. 

Rabba  and  R.  Zera  once  met  at  the  Exilarch's  house;  they 
saw  there  a  servant  putting  a  can  (with  warm  water)  on  top  of 
a  kettle  (containing  cold  water),  and  Rabba  rebuked  him.  Said 
R.  Zera  to  him:  "  In  what  particular  does  this  case  differ  from 
that  of  putting  one  pan  on  top  of  another  ? ' '  Answered  Rabba : 
"  Here  heat  is  produced,  but  there  it  is  only  preserved."  An- 
other time  they  saw  (the  servant)  spreading  a  turban  over  a  pitcher 
and  putting  a  cup  on  top  of  it.  Again  Rabba  rebuked  him. 
R.  Zera  asked  for  the  reason,  and  Rabba  answered:  "  You  will 
soon  see  him  wringing*  the  turban,"  which  he  did.  R.  Zera 
again  asked :  "  In  what  particular  does  this  case  differ  from  that 
of  a  spread  cloth  ?"  Answered  Rabba:  "  Here  he  is  particular 
(lest  it  become  wet  and  he  will  wring  it),  while  there  he  is  not." 

"  In  straw."  R.  Adda  b.  Masna  questioned  Abayi :  "  May 
wool-flocks,  in  which  (victuals)  were  deposited,  be  handled  on 
Sabbath?"      Abayi  answered:    "Because  of  a  lack  of  straw, 

*  Wringing  (in  Hebrew,  Se'hitah)  is  prohibited  on  the  Sabbath. 


84  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

would  a  man  sacrifice  a  valuable  lot  of  wool-flock  ?  "  (When 
placing  victuals  in  straw  no  intention  to  make  further  use  of  the 
straw  exists,  and  it  becomes  part  of  the  pot  itself ;  with  wool- 
flocks  the  case  is  different,  for  they  are  intended  for  further  use 
and  therefore  must  not  be  handled  on  Sabbath.) 

R.  Hisda  permitted  the  replacing  of  waste  (fallen  out)  of 
a  pillow  on  Sabbath. 

R.  Hanan  b.  Hisda  objected  to  him  from  the  following: 
"  Untying  the  opening  (for  the  neck)  of  a  shirt  is  permitted  on 
Sabbath,  but  cutting  it  is  prohibited,  and  waste  must  not  be 
placed  into  a  pillow  or  bolster  on  a  biblical  feast  day,  much  less 
on  a  Sabbath." 

This  presents  no  difficulty.  Placing  new  waste  in  a  pillow- 
case is  not  allowed,  but  replacing  old  waste  is  allowed.  And  so 
also  we  have  learned  plainly  in  a  Boraitha,  that  when  they  fall 
out  they  may  be  replaced  even  on  Sabbath,  and  much  the  more 
on  a  feast  day. 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said:  "  Whosoever  makes 
an  opening  (for  the  neck  in  an  unfinished  shirt)  on  Sabbath  is 
liable  to  a  sin-offering." 

R.  Kahana  opposed,  saying:  What  is  the  difference  between 
an  opening  for  the  neck  and  a  bunghead  (in  a  barrel)  ?  Rabha 
answered:  A  bunghead  is  not  attached  to  the  barrel  {i.e.,  it 
forms  no  part  of  it),  but  an  opening  for  the  neck  is  made  by  an 
incision  in  the  shirt,  and  hence  is  part  and  parcel  of  same.  In 
Sura  the  following  doctrine  was  taught  in  the  name  of  R.  Hisda, 
and  in  Pumbeditha  the  same  was  taught  in  the  name  of  R. 
Kahana  or  Rabha:  "  Who  was  the  Tana  in  whose  name  the 
sages  taught  that  the  part  and  parcel  of  a  thing  is  on  a  par  with 
the  thing  itself?"  Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh: 
"  It  is  R.  Meir  (of  the  Mishna,  Kelim,  VIII.)  who  holds  that  the 
attachment  built  on  a  hearth  is  on  a  par  with  the  hearth  itself 
and  becomes  unclean  when  touched  by  an  unclean  thing." 

"  When  wet.'*  A  question  was  propounded:  Naturally  or 
artificially  wet  ?  Come  and  hear.  The  Mishna  says:  "  Not 
with  straw,  nor  with  grape-skins,  nor  with  wool-flocks,  nor  with 
grass  when  wet."  It  is  right  only  if  we  accept  the  theory  that 
they  became  wet,  but  should  we  venture  to  think  them  natu- 
rally wet,  how  is  this  to  be  imagined  ?  Can  wool-flocks  be  natu- 
rally wet  ?  The  sweaty  wool  under  the  hips  may  be  meant. 
Did  not  R.  Oshia  teach  we  may  deposit  in  dry  cloth  and  dry 
fruit,  but  not  in  wet  cloth  or  wet  fruit  ?     How  is  naturally  wet 


TRACT   SABBATH.  85 

cloth  to  be  imagined  ?  This  may  also  mean  cloth  made  from 
the  sweaty  wool  under  the  hips  of  the  sheep. 

MISHNA  //.  :  It  may  be  deposited  in  cloth,  fruit,  pigeon 
feathers,  shavings,  and  fine  flaxen  tow.  R.  Jehudah  forbids 
the  use  of  fine,  but  permits  the  use  of  coarse  flaxen  tow. 

GEMARA:  *'  Shavings."  A  question  was  propounded: 
Does  R.  Jehudah  forbid  the  use  of  fine  shavings  or  fine  flaxen 
tow  ?  Come  and  hear.  We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  R. 
Jehudah  says:  Fine  flaxen  tow  is  the  same  as  dung,  which  in- 
creases heat ;  therefore  the  conclusion  is  that  he  means  flaxen  tow. 

MISHNA///.:  It  may  be  deposited  (wrapped)  in  skins,  and 
they  may  be  handled;  in  shorn  wool,  and  must  not  be  handled. 
How  can  this  be  done  ?  The  lid  is  raised  and  it  (the  shorn 
wool)  falls  down.  R.  Elazar  b.  Azarya  says:  The  vessel  is  bent 
sideways  lest  it  be  taken  out  and  cannot  be  replaced,  but  the 
sages  say  it  may  be  taken  out  and  replaced. 

GEMARA :  A  question  was  propounded  by  R.  Jonathan  b. 
Akhinayi,  R.  Jonathan  b.  Elazar,  and  R.  Hanina  b.  Hama: 
Does  the  Mishna  allude  to  skins  beloning  to  private  men  only, 
hence  skins  belonging  to  an  artisan,  who  is  particular  with 
them,  may  not  be  handled  under  any  circumstances;  or  perhaps 
the  Mishna  allows  even  an  artisan's  skins?  Answered  R.  Jona- 
than b.  Elazar  to  them:  It  is  reasonable  to  accept  that  it  applies 
only  to  those  belonging  to  private  men  but  not  to  artisans, 
because  they  (the  artisans)  are  particular.  Said  R.  Hanina  b. 
Hama  to  them:  Thus  said  R.  Ishmael  b.  Jossi:  "  My  father 
was  a  tanner,  and  he  said,  *  Bring  some  skins  here  to  sit  on.'  " 

An  objection  was  raised :  Boards  of  private  men  may  be 
handled,  but  not  those  of  artisans  (if,  however,  the  intention  is 
to  serve  a  meal  on  them  for  guests  both  kinds  may  be  handled)  ? 
With  boards  it  is  different.  Even  private  men  arc  particular 
with  boards. 

On  this  point  the  following  Tanaim  difTer:  Skins  belonging 
to  private  men  may  be  handled,  but  not  those  of  artisans.  R. 
Jossi  says  both  kinds  may  be  handled. 

While  they  were  sitting  together  another  question  was  pro- 
pounded by  them :  The  forty  less  one  principal  acts  of  labor  on 
Sabbath,  where  are  they  taken  from  ?  Said  R.  Hanina  b. 
Hama:  "  From  the  acts  of  labor  performed  at  the  tabernacle." 
R.  Jonathan  b.  Elazar,  however,  said:  Thus  said  R.  Simeon  b. 
Jossi  b.  Laqunia:  From  the  thirty-nine  times  the  words  "  work," 
"  his  work,"  and  "  work  of  "  are  to  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch. 


86  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

R.  Joseph  questioned  Rabba:  Is  the  term  "  his  work  "  which 
is  found  in  the  passage  "  and  Joseph  came  into  the  house  to  do 
his  work  "  [Gen.  xxxix.  12]  also  of  the  number  or  not  ?  Abayi 
answered  him:  "Let  us  bring  the  book  and  count,"  and  he 
rejoined:  "  I  am  in  doubt  whether  the  verse  '  and  the  work  was 
enough  '  [Ex.  xxxvi.  7]  is  of  the  number,  and  the  former  verse 
is  to  be  explained  '  he  came  in  to  do  his  business,'  or  whether 
the  former  is  of  the  number  and  the  latter  is  to  be  explained 
'  the  task  was  completed.'  "  (Both  verses  cannot  be  counted 
among  the  thirty-nine,  because  if  they  are  there  will  be  forty  in 
all.)     This  question  remains  unanswered. 

It  is  proven  by  a  Boraitha  that  the  adduction  of  the  thirty- 
nine  acts  is  made  from  the  acts  performed  at  the  tabernacle, 
for  we  were  taught:  One  is  culpable  only  for  the  performance 
of  such  work  as  was  done  at  the  building  of  the  tabernacle. 
They  have  sown,  but  ye  must  not  sow;  they  have  harvested, 
but  ye  must  not ;  they  have  loaded  the  boards  from  the  ground 
upon  wagons,  but  ye  must  remove  nothing  from  public  into 
private  ground;  they  have  unloaded  from  the  wagons  to  the 
ground,  but  ye  must  not  remove  from  private  into  public 
ground ;  they  have  transferred  from  one  wagon  into  another, 
but  ye  must  transfer  nothing  from  private  into  private  ground. 
"  From  private  into  private  ground."  What  wrong  is  committed 
by  that  ?  Both  Abayi  and  Rabha,  and  according  to  others  R. 
Adda  b.  Ahabha,  said:  "  From  private  into  private  ground  by 
way  of  public  ground." 

* '  In  shorn  wool  and  may  not  be  handled. ' '  Rabha  and  Rabhiti 
in  the  name  of  Rabbi  (Jehudah  Hanassi)  said:  "It  is  only 
taught,  when  not  designated  for  the  purpose  of  depositing  in 
them,  but  if  designated  for  that  purpose  they  may  be  handled." 
Rabhina  says  that  the  teaching  of  the  Mishna  is  applicable  to 
shorn  wool  taken  from  stock  (of  a  store). 

The  following  Boraitha  is  in  support  of  this:  Shorn  wool 
taken  from  stock  is  not  to  be  handled,  but  if  prepared  by  a  pri- 
vate man  for  a  purpose  it  may  be  handled. 

Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  taught  before  Rabh:  Palm  branches,  if 
cut  off  for  use  as  fuel  and  finally  intended  for  sitting  purposes, 
must  be  tied  together  (before  the  Sabbath).  R.  Simeon  b. 
Gamaliel  said  it  needs  not  tying.  He  who  taught  this  has  him- 
self declared  that  the  Halakha  prevails  in  accordance  with 
R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel. 

It  was  taught:  (In  relation  to  sitting  on  palm  branches  cut 


TRACT   SABBATH.  87 

off  for  use  as  fue]^  Rabh  said  (it  must  be)  tied.  Samuel  said: 
The  intention  on  t  le  eve  of  Sabbath  suffices;  and  R.  Assi  said: 
Sitting  (on  them  before  the  Sabbath),  even  if  not  tied  nor  pre- 
viously intended  for  sitting  purposes  on  the  Sabbath,  is  suffi- 
cient. It  is  clear  that  Rabh  holds  with  the  first  teacher  and 
Samuel  holds  with  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel,  but  whom  does  R. 
Assi's  opinion  agree  with  ?  He  is  in  accordance  with  the  Tana 
of  the  following  Boraitha:  It  is  permitted  to  go  out  (on  Sab- 
bath) with  a  flax  or  wool  plaster  (on  a  wound)  when  dipped  in 
oil  and  tied  with  a  string,  but  it  is  not  permitted  when  the 
plaster  is  not  dipped  in  oil  or  tied  with  a  string;  but  if  one  went 
out  with  it  only  a  little  before  the  Sabbath,  even  if  not  dipped 
in  oil  and  tied,  it  is  permissible.  Said  R.  Ashi :  "  We  were  also 
taught  in  a  Mishna  in  support  of  this;  but  who  is  the  teacher 
that  does  not  agree  with  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel?"  It  is  R. 
Hanina  b.  Aqiba,  for  when  R.  Dimi  came  from  Palestine  he 
said  in  the  name  of  Zera,  quoting  R.  Hanina:  R.  Hanina  b. 
Aqiba  once  went  with  his  disciples  to  a  place  and  found  some 
palm  branches  tied  together  to  be  used  as  fuel ;  he  said  to  his 
disciples:  "  Make  up  your  minds  to  sit  on  them  to-morrow." 
I  do  not  know  whether  there  was  to  be  a  wedding  or  a  funeral 
that  following  day,  but  the  inference  from  this  narration  is: 
Only  in  the  case  of  a  wedding  or  funeral,  when  people  are  busy 
(and  could  not  tie  them  up),  the  intention  is  sufficient,  but 
otherwise  tying  together  is  necessary. 

R.  Jehudah  said:  "  One  is  permitted  to  carry  in  a  box  of 
sand  on  the  Sabbath  for  the  purpose  (of  covering  up  an  unclean 
place)  and  use  the  remainder  for  any  purpose  whatever.  Mar 
Zutra,  in  the  name  of  Mar  Zutra  the  Great,  interpreted  this — 
providing  he  singled  out  a  corner  for  it.  Said  the  rabbis  before 
R.  Papa:  "  Is  this  teaching  (of  the  great  Mar  Zutra)  in  accord 
only  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Gamaliel,  but  not  with 
that  of  the  rabbis  who  require  action  rather  than  intention?" 
R.  Papa  answered :  It  may  even  be  in  accord  with  the  rabbis, 
who  require  action  only  where  it  is  possible,  and  this  action 
(tying  together  or  sitting  on  sand)  is  impossible  (as  reserving 
a  corner  for  them  is  not  considered  an  act,  but  an  intention 
only). 

R.  Jehudah  permits  the  use  of  the  dust  of  incense  on  the 
Sabbath.  R.  Joseph  permits  poppy-seed  waste.  Rabha  per- 
mits pepper  dust  and  R.  Shesheth  Barda,  to  wash  the  face 
with.     What  is  Barda  ?     Said  R.  Joseph  :  A  powder  of  one-third 


88  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

aloe,  one-third  myrrh,  and  one-third  violet.  R.  Nehemiah  b. 
Joseph  also  permits  Barda,  provided  it  does  not  contain  more 
than  a  third  part  of  aloe. 

R.  Shesheth  was  asked  if  it  was  permitted  to  crush  olives  on 
Sabbath?  He  answered:  "Is  it  permitted  on  week  days?" 
He  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  spoiling  of  food  is  not  allowed. 

Barda  was  brought  to  Ameimar,  Mar  Zutra,  and  R.  Ashi. 
Ameimar  and  R.  Ashi  washed  themselves  with  it,  but  Mar  Zutra 
did  not.  They  asked  him:  "  Do  you,  Master,  not  hold  with 
R.  Shesheth,  who  permits  the  use  of  it  ? "  Said  R.  Mordecai 
to  them:  Leave  out  the  master  in  this  question,  for  he  does 
not  even  use  Barda  on  week  days.  He  holds  with  the  follow- 
ing Boraitha:  "  One  is  permitted  to  scratch  off  crust  of  excre- 
ment and  of  wounds  only  for  the  purpose  of  relieving  pain, 
but  not  for  the  purpose  of  beautifying  the  person."  And  the 
above-mentioned  rabbis  agree  with  the  teaching  of  the  follow- 
ing: One  should  wash  his  face,  hands,  and  feet  daily  out  of 
respect  for  his  Creator,  as  it  is  written  [Prov.  xvi.  4] :  "  Every 
thing  hath  the  Lord  wrought  for  its  destined  end."* 

"  The  vessel  is  bent  sideways,''  etc.  Said  R.  Aba  in  the  name 
of  R.  Hyya  b.  Ashi,  quoting  Rabh:  If  the  cavity  formed 
by  the  vessel  got  out  of  shape  it  is  not  permitted  to  replace  (the 
vessel).  There  is  an  objection  from  our  Mishna:  "  And  the 
sages  say  it  may  be  taken  out  and  replaced."  How  shall  this  be 
understood  ?  If  the  cavity  remained  intact  the  rabbis  did  well 
by  telling  us  that  the  replacing  of  the  vessel  was  allowed ;  but  if 
the  cavity  got  out  of  shape,  is  it  not  self-evident  that  replacing 
is  not  permitted  ?  Nay ;  they  still  maintain  that  the  cavity  did 
not  get  out  of  shape,  and  the  controversy  (in  the  case)  is  as 
regards  precaution.  One  maintains  that  this  precaution  is  to 
be  taken  (lest  we  replace  the  vessel  when  the  cavity  is  out  of 
shape),  while  the  others  contend  this  is  not  necessary. 

R.  Huna  said:  "  A  fragrant  plant  used  after  meals  in  place 
of  burnt  spices,  if  it  was  taken  out  of  and  replaced  in  the 
flower-pot  before  Sabbath,  it  may  be  taken  out,  used,  and 
replaced  on  Sabbath,  but  not  otherwise.  Samuel  said  that  the 
same  is  the  case  with  a  knife  that  was  preserved  between  the 
bricks.  Mar  Zutra,  according  to  others  R.  Ashi,  said  that  a 
knife  may  be  preserved  between  the  branches  of  the  root.     And 

*  The  expression  in  Hebrew  is  lemaanehu  ;  literally,  "for  his  own  purpose." 
Leeser  translates  for  the  purpose  of  the  things  created  ;  the  Talmud,  however,  takes 
it  literally. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  89 

R.  Mordecai  said  to  Rabha  that  R,  Qatina  has  objected  to  the 
above  rabbis,  who  said  that  if  it  were  not  replaced  before  Sab- 
bath it  must  not  be  used,  from  a  Mishna  (Kilaim,  I.  9),  which 
states  plainly  that  it  may  be  taken  out  on  Sabbath.  This 
question  remains. 

MISHNA  IV. :  (A  vessel)  not  covered  during  daylight  must 
not  be  covered  after  dark.  If,  after  having  been  covered,  it 
became  uncovered,  it  is  permitted  to  cover  it  again.  A  pitcher 
may  be  filled  with  cold  victuals  and  put  under  a  pillow  (to  keep 
it  cool). 

GEMARA:  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel  said:  "  It  is 
permitted  to  store  cold  victuals  (to  protect  them  from  the  sun).'* 
Said  R.  Joseph:  "  What  news  came  he  to  teach  ?  Have  we  not 
learned  this  in  the  above  Mishna?"  Abayi  answered:  "A 
great  deal!  From  the  Mishna  I  would  infer  that  only  such 
things  as  are  not  usually  stored  are  permissible  (for  in  that  case 
no  precaution  lest  one  put  warm  victuals  under  a  pillow  or  bol- 
ster for  the  purpose  of  generating  heat  is  necessary);  he  informs 
us,  however,  that  even  such  things  as  are  usually  stored  are 
permissible  also."  R.  Huna  in  the  name  of  Rabbi,  however, 
says:  "  It  is  prohibited."  Were  we  not  taught  that  Rabbi  has 
permitted  this  ?  This  presents  no  difficulty.  In  the  former 
instance  he  did  so  when  he  was  not  as  yet  aware  of  the  follow- 
ing decision  of  R.  Ishmael  b.  Jossi.  Rabbi  at  one  time  decided 
that  it  is  forbidden  to  store  cold  victuals.  Said  R.  Ishmael  b. 
Jossi  to  him:  "  My  father  permitted  it,"  whereupon  Rabbi 
said:  "  If  this  sage  has  once  permitted  it,  so  shall  it  be  done." 
Said  R.  Papa:  Come  ye  and  note  the  mutual  respect:  Had  R. 
Jossi  been  alive,  he  would  have  had  to  show  respect  to  Rabbi ; 
as  R.  Ishmael,  who  succeeded  his  father  in  every  respect,  also 
has  acknowledged  Rabbi's  superiority.  Still  Rabbi  accepted 
his  decision. 

R.  Na'hman  said  to  his  slave  Doru :  "  Store  some  cold  vict- 
uals for  me  and  bring  me  warm  water  from  a  Gentile  cook- 
shop."  R.  Ami  heard  this  and  was  angry.  Said  R.  Joseph: 
"  What  was  the  reason  of  his  anger  ?  Did  not  R.  Na'hman  act 
in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  the  great  masters,  Rabh  and 
Samuel  ?"  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel  said:  It  is  per- 
mitted to  store  cold  victuals,  and  R.  Samuel  b.  R.  Itz'hak  said 
in  the  name  of  Rabh:  Anything  that  may  be  consumed  raw  is 
not  included  in  the  prohibition  relating  to  cooking  by  a  Gentile; 
he  (R.  Ami),  however,  was  of  the  opinion  that,  although  it  is 


90  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

allowed,  a  man  of  note  should  not  practise  it  (because  the  lay- 
man seeing  such  things  of  the  scholar  he  might  allow  himself 
still  more). 

The  rabbis  taught :  "  Although  the  sages  said  it  is  not  allowed 
to  deposit  (warm  victuals)  after  dark,  even  in  such  receptacles 
as  do  not  increase  the  heat,  still,  if  already  deposited,  it  is  per- 
mitted to  add  more  cover.  How  can  this  be  done  ?  R.  Simeon 
b.  Gamaliel  says:  "  In  cold  weather  the  covering  sheet  may  be 
taken  off  and  a  blanket  substituted ;  in  warm  weather  the  blanket 
may  be  taken  ofT  and  a  sheet  substituted."  Furthermore  said 
the  same:  "The  sages  prohibited  (to  deposit  warm  victuals) 
only  in  the  same  pan  in  which  they  were  cooked,  but  if  emptied 
into  another  pan  it  is  permitted;  and  there  is  no  fear  of  one 
coming  to  cook  (on  the  Sabbath);  for  (the  act  of)  emptying  (the 
victuals)  from  the  cooking-pan  (into  another)  proves  (that  there 
is  no  such  intention). 

If  one  deposited  a  pot  (containing  victuals)  in  material  that 
may  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath,  and  covered  it  with  the  same, 
or  even  deposited  it  in  non-permissible  material,  but  covered  it 
with  permissible,  he  may  take  out  the  pot  and  replace  it;  but  if 
he  deposited  it  in  non-permissible  material  and  covered  it  with 
the  same,  or  even  deposited  it  in  permissible,  but  covered  it 
with  non-permissible  material,  he  may  take  out  the  pot,  but  can 
replace  it  only  if  the  pot  was  but  partly  covered.  Otherwise, 
he  must  not  replace  it  at  all. 

It  is  permitted  to  put  one  cooking-pan  upon  another,  and 
also  one  earthen  pot  upon  another,  but  not  an  earthen  pot  upon 
a  cooking-pan,  or  a  cooking-pan  upon  an  earthen  pot.  (Even 
on  Sabbath)  the  cover  of  a  pot  may  be  fastened  down  with 
dough  (kneaded  on  Friday  before  dusk).  In  the  case  of  putting 
one  pan  or  pot  upon  another,  this  may  be  done  only  to  preserve 
the  heat,  but  not  for  the  purpose  of  heating  the  upper  pot  by 
means  of  the  lower  one. 

The  same  as  it  is  forbidden  to  store  warm  (victuals),  so  it  is 
also  forbidden  to  store  cold  (victuals)  on  the  Sabbath ;  but 
Rabbi  permitted  the  latter  to  be  done.  Even  so  is  it  prohib- 
ited to  chop  ice  on  Sabbath  in  order  to  obtain  cold  water,  but 
ice  may  be  put  into  a  vessel  or  a  pitcher  without  fear  of  the 
consequences. 


CHAPTER   V. 

REGULATIONS    CONCERNING    WHAT    MAY    AND    MAY    NOT    BE    WORN    BY 
ANIMALS   ON    THE    SABBATH. 

MISHNA  /. :  What  gear  may  we  let  animals  go  about  in 
and  what  not  ?*  The  male  camel  in  a  bridle;  the  female  camel 
with  a  nose-ring;  Lybian  asses  in  a  halter,  and  a  horse  in  a  col- 
lar. All  (animals)  that  are  used  to  collars  may  go  out  in  and 
may  be  led  by  the  collar.  Such  gear  (when  it  becomes  defiled) 
can  be  sprinkled  and  submerged  without  being  removed  from 
its  (proper)  place  (on  the  animal). 

GEMARA:  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel  said  :  "Rabbi 
was  asked,  How  is  it  when  the  reverse  is  the  case  ?  i.e.,  when 
the  female  camel  is  bridled  and  the  male  camel  is  invested  with 
a  nose-ring  ?  May  they  be  allowed  to  go  about  ?  There  is  no 
question  as  to  a  bridle  on  a  female  camel,  for  it  is  considered  a 
burden ;  as  to  a  nose-ring  on  a  male  camel,  shall  we  assume  that 
it  is  merely  an  additional  safeguard,  and  thus  becomes  permis- 
sible, or  is  it  an  unnecessary  safeguard  and  hence  not  allowed  ?  " 
R.  Ishmael  b.  Jossi  answered:  "Thus  my  father  said:  Four 
animals  may  go  about  with  a  bridle  on — the  horse,  the  mule, 
the  camel,  and  the  ass."  A  Boraitha  states:  Lydda  asses  and 
camels  may  go  about  with  a  bridle  on.  The  following  Tanaim, 
however,  differ  as  to  this  point  (whether  a  superfluous  safeguard 
is  a  burden  or  not):  one  maintains  that  no  animal  may  go  about 
burdened  with  a  chain ;  but  Hananya  says  a  chain  or  anything 
else  that  is  intended  as  a  safeguard  is  permitted. 

Said  R.  Huna  b.  Hyya  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  "  The 
Halakha  prevails  according  to  Hananya." 

Levi  b.  R.  Huna  b.  Hyya  and  Rabba  b.  R.  Huna  once  trav- 
elled together;  arriving  at  an  entrance,  the  former's  ass  ran 
ahead  of  the  latter's.  Rabba  b.  R.  Huna  became  dejected  (at 
the  lack  of  respect  shown  him,  supposing  it  to  have  been  done 
intentionally).     Thought  Levi  to  himself:  "  I  will  pacify  him 

*  See  Exodus  xx.  lo  and  Dcui.  v.  14,  where  it  is  prohibited  to  have  cattle  per- 
form work  on  the  Sabbath.  The  Mishna  considers  the  carr\'ingof  burdens  work  and 
defines  what  gear  constitutes  a  burden  for  cattle  and  what  does  not. 


c,2  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

with  the  following  question:  Is  it  permitted  to  put  a  halter  on 
an  unmanageable  ass  like  mine  on  the  Sabbath?"  Rejoined 
Rabba:  "  So  said  your  father  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  'The 
decision  of  Hananya  prevails.'  " 

At  the  school  of  Menashyah  it  was  taught:  A  goat  with  a 
bridle  fastened  to  his  horns  is  permitted  to  go  about  on  Sabbath 
(but  not  if  the  bridle  was  simply  tied  to  the  horns,  as  it  may 
slip  off  and  a  man  may  be  forced  to  carry  the  bridle). 

An  objection  was  raised :  "  Were  we  not  taught  in  a  Mishna 
that  it  is  not  allowed  to  let  a  cow  go  about  with  a  strap  tied 
between  her  horns  ?  " 

Said  R.  Irmya  b.  Aba :  On  this  point  Rabh  and  Samuel  dif- 
fer; according  to  one  it  is  prohibited  at  any  rate,  and  according 
to  the  other,  if  for  an  ornament  it  is  prohibited,  but  as  a  safe- 
guard it  is  permitted.  Said  R.  Joseph:  "  It  seems  that  Samuel 
was  the  one  who  permitted  it  as  a  safeguard,  as  R.  Huna  said 
in  his  name  the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  Hananya."  Said 
Abayi  to  R.  Joseph:  "  On  the  contrary,  it  may  be  that  Samuel 
is  the  one  who  forbids  it  at  any  rate,  as  R.  Jehudah  said  above 
in  his  name:  Rabbi  was  asked:  How  is  it  when  the  reverse  is 
the  case,"  etc.  Does  this  not  mean  to  exclude  a  nose-ring  from 
a  camel  ?  But  why  should  you  prefer  this  latter  saying  to  the 
former  one  ?  Because  it  was  taught:  "  R.  Hyya  b.  Ashi  said 
in  the  name  of  Rabh  that  it  is  forbidden  at  any  rate ;  and  R. 
Hyya  b.  Abhin  in  the  name  of  Samuel  said:  It  is  permitted  as 
a  safeguard." 

An  objection  was  raised  from  the  following:  If  the  owner 
tied  the  (red)  heifer  with  a  halter,  she  may  nevertheless  be  used. 
Should  you  assume  that  this  (halter)  is  a  burden  (how  could  she 
be  used)?  (Do  not)  the  Scriptures  say  [Numbers,  xix.  2]: 
"  Upon  which  there  was  no  yoke"  ?  Answered  Abayi:  "  (It 
is  to  be  understood)  when  the  owner  leads  her  from  one  town 
to  another,  (the  halter  is  a  necessary  safeguard,  hence  no  bur- 
den)."  Rabh  said:  "  There  is  quite  a  difference  in  the  case  of 
the  red  heifer,"  as  she  is  very  valuable  (and  must  be  guarded). 
Rabhina  said :  "  She  must  have  a  halter  on  account  of  her  stub- 
bornness." 

"  The  horse  with  a  collar."  What  is  meant  by  "  go  about  " 
or  led  ?  R.  Huna  said:  "  It  makes  no  difference  whether  the 
strap  hangs  loose  on  the  animal's  neck  or  is  used  as  a  rein ;  but 
Samuel  said  they  may  go  about  if  led  (by  the  strap)  but  not 
(with  the  strap)  hanging  loose. 


TRACT    SABB.\TH. 


93 


A  Boraitha  teaches:  "  They  may  go  about  with  the  halter 
tied  round  their  necks  in  order  that  they  may  be  led  whenever 
necessar)'. "  Said  R.  Joseph:  "  I  have  seen  the  calves  of  R, 
Huna  going  out  on  a  Sabbath  with  their  halters  round  their 
necks."  R.  Samuel  b.  Jehudah,  when  coming  from  Palestine, 
said  in  the  name  of  R.  Hanina  that  Rabbi's  mules  also  went 
out  on  a  Sabbath  with  their  halters  tied  around  their  necks. 

"  And  are  sprinkled,"  etc.  Is  this  to  say  that  they  are  sub- 
ject to  defilement  ?  Does  not  a  Mishna  state  [Kclim,  XII.  8] 
that  only  rings  worn  by  human  beings  are  subject  to  defilement, 
but  harness  and  all  other  rings  are  not  ?  Said  R.  Itz'hak  of 
Naph'ha*:  The  collar-ring  having  at  one  time  been  used  by 
men  for  personal  purposes  and  become  defiled,  still  retains  its 
defiled  character;  R.  Joseph,  however,  maintains  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  claim  this.  The  fact  that  the  collar-ring  is  used  by  man 
for  the  purpose  of  guiding  the  animal  lays  it  open  to  becoming 
defiled,  as  we  have  learned  in  the  Boraitha  which  taught  us :  A 
metal  whip  is  subject  to  defilement,  for  the  reason  that  man 
uses  it  to  manage  the  animal  with. 

' '  A  nd  submerged  without  removing  it  from  its  place.  * '     Would 

this  not  constitute  a  case  of  "  Chatzitzah  "  (intervention). f    Said 

R.  Ami:  "  (Intervention  of  the  bridle  between  the  neck  and  the 

water)  is  avoided  by  loosening  the  bridle. ' '     A  Boraitha  teaches : 

Intervention  is  avoided  by  the  size  of  the  bridle." 

MISHNA  //. :  The  ass  may  go  out  with  a  rug  fastened 
around  him ;  rams  may  go  out  with  leather  bandages  tied 
around  their  privates;  sheep  may  go  out  with  their  tails  tied  up 
or  down  and  wrapped  (to  preserve  the  fine  wool);  she-goats  may 
go  out  with  their  udders  tied  up.  R.  Jossi  forbids  all  this 
except  sheep  wrapped  up.  R.  Jehudah  saj-s :  She-goats  may 
go  out  with  their  udders  tied  up  to  stop  the  lactation,  but  not 
to  save  the  milk. 

GEMARA:  Said  Samuel:  The  Mishna  means:  "Only  when 
the  (rug)  is  fastened  on  Sabbath  eve."  Said  R.  Na'hman  :  It 
seems  to  be  so  from  the  following  Mishna:  "  An  ass  may  not 


*  Naph'ha  is  Aramaic  for  "  smith."  According  to  the  opinion  of  Dr.  I.  M. 
Wise,  the  reviser  of  this  Tract  in  the  first  edition,  Naph'ha  refers  to  the  city  whence 
R.  Itz'hak  came.  This  was  criticised,  but  we  found  the  same  was  said  by  Frankel 
and  many  others. 

f  When  any  article  of  apparel,  worn  by  a  person  or  animal  while  bathing,  inter- 
Tcnes  between  the  body  and  the  water,  »".<•.,  bars  the  admission  of  the  water  to  the 
body,  it  constitutes  a  case  of  "  Chatzitzah." 


94  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

go  out  with  a  rug  unless  fastened."  How  should  this  be  under- 
stood ?  Shall  we  say  that  (the  rug)  is  not  fastened  at  all  ?  Then 
it  would  be  self-evident,  lest  it  fall  off  and  will  have  to  be  car- 
ried by  a  man.  We  must,  therefore,  assume  that  the  Mishna's 
meaning  of  "  not  fastened  "  signifies  "  not  fastened  before  the 
Sabbath."     Hence  Samuel's  opinion  has  a  good  reason. 

And  it  is  also  supported  in  the  following  Boraitha:  "The 
ass  may  go  out  with  a  rug  fastened  before  the  Sabbath,  but  not 
with  a  saddle,  even  though  fastened  before."  R.  Simeon  b. 
Gamaliel  says:  "  Even  with  a  saddle,  if  fastened  before  the 
Sabbath,  provided,  however,  no  stirrups  are  attached  to  the 
saddle  and  a  crupper  under  the  tail." 

R.  Assi  b.  Nathan  questioned  R.  Hyya  b.  R.  Ashi:  Is  it 
permitted  to  put  a  rug  on  an  ass  on  the  Sabbath  ?  "  "It  is,'' 
was  the  answer.  And  to  the  question:  "  What  is  the  differ- 
ence (in  the  Law)  between  these  two  ? "  He  was  silent.  (Mis- 
interpreting the  silence,)  R.  Assi  objected :  "  A  Boraitha  teaches : 
It  is  not  allowed  to  remove  the  saddle  from  the  ass  directly,  but 
one  may  move  it  to  and  fro  until  it  falls  off;  if  you  say  it  is  for- 
bidden to  handle  the  saddle,  is  there  any  question  as  to  putting 
it  on  ?  "  Said  R.  Zera  to  him:  "  Leave  him  alone !  He  is  of  the 
opinion  of  his  teacher  (Rabh),  in  whose  name  R.  Hyya  b.  R. 
Ashi  related  that  he  (Rabh)  permitted  putting  a  feed-bag  on  an 
animal  on  Sabbath."  A  feed-bag,  which  is  nothing  but  an 
accommodation,  is  permitted ;  so  much  the  more  a  rug,  which  is 
a  relief!  Samuel,  however,  permitted  a  rug,  but  prohibited 
a  feed-bag.  R.  Hyya  b.  Joseph  reported  the  opinion  of  Rabh 
to  Samuel,  whereupon  the  latter  said:  "If  so  said  Abba,  he 
knows  nothing  of  the  laws  of  Sabbath." 

When  R.  Zera  came  (to  Palestine),  he  heard  R.  Benjamin  b. 
Japheth  stating  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  that  it  is  permitted  to 
put  on  a  rug.  He  thanked  him  for  it  and,  continuing,  remarked : 
"  Thus  has  the  Arioch  (King  of  Laws)  in  Babylon  decided." 
Who  is  meant  by  the  title  (Arioch)  ?     Samuel. 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  evident  that  all  agree  that  it  is  per- 
mitted to  cover  an  ass  with  a  rug  on  Sabbath.  But  what  is  the 
point  in  which  a  saddle  differs  from  the  rug  ?  It  differs  therein 
that  a  saddle  may  drop  off  (and  involve  the  necessity  of  hand- 
ling). R.  Papa  gave  another  reason:  "To  cover  an  ass  with 
a  rug  is  an  act  of  relief,  for  it  is  said  that  an  ass  feels  cold  even 
in  summer,  but  to  remove  a  saddle  from  an  ass's  back  in  order 
to  cool  off  the  ass  is  not  necessarily  an  act  of  relief." 


TRACT    SABBATH.  95 

An  objection  was  raised.  We  have  learned:  "  Tiie  horse 
shall  not  go  out  with  a  fo.x-tail  (for  a  pompon)  and  calves  with 
the  feed-bags  on  public  ground."  Shall  we  not  assume  that  (in 
the  case  of  the  calves)  they  may  not  go  out  on  public  ground, 
but  they  may  on  private  ground,  and  it  refers  even  to  large 
calves  (whose  necks  are  long  enough  to  reach  the  ground 
with  their  mouths  easily);  thus  feed-bags  are  merely  an  accom- 
modation ?  Nay;  the  permission  to  carry  feed-bags  applies 
only  to  small  calves  (whose  necks  are  short  and  legs  long,  and 
to  which  reaching  down  to  the  ground  with  their  mouths 
would  entail  a  hardship)  and  must  be  considered  as  a  necessary 
relief. 

The  master  said:  "  She-goats  must  not  go  out  with  a  bag 
attached  to  their  udders."  Is  there  not  a  Boraitha  which 
teaches  that  they  w«j  .^  Said  R.  Jehudah:  "This  presents  no 
difficulty.  In  the  former  case  the  bag  is  not  tied  fast,  in  the 
latter  it  is  (and  there  is  no  reason  for  apprehension  lest  it  drop 
off  and  will  have  to  be  carried)."  Said  R.  Joseph:  "  Why,  you 
have  entirely  done  away  with  the  teachers  of  our  Mishna. 
There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  between  the  teachers  in  this 
very  Mishna:  '  She-goats  may  go  out  with  a  bag  tied  to  their 
udders.'  "  R.  Jossi  forbids  all  except  sheep  with  covers  on  to 
protect  the  wool.  R.  Jehudah  says:  "  She-goats  may  go  out 
with  their  udders  tied  up  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  lacta- 
tion, but  not  for  the  purpose  of  saving  the  milk." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Jehudah  related  the  case 
of  she-goats  which  he  saw  in  Antioch.  Their  udders  were  so 
large  that  bags  had  to  be  made  for  them  in  order  to  prevent 
their  dragging  on  the  ground  and  becoming  mutilated.  (These 
bags  were  worn  also  on  the  Sabbath.) 

The  rabbis  taught:  "  It  happened  with  one  man  whose  wife 
died  and  left  him  a  nursing  child,  he  was  so  poor  that  he  could 
not  pay  a  wet-nurse.  A  miracle  happened  to  him;  his  breasts 
opened  and  he  nursed  his  child."  Said  R.  Joseph:  Come  and 
see  how  great  the  man  must  have  been  that  such  a  miracle  was 
wrought  for  him.  Said  Abayi  to  him  :  On  the  contrary'.  Behold 
how  bad  the  man  must  have  been  that  the  nature  of  mankind 
changed  in  him  and  nothing  occurred  to  enable  him  to  earn 
enough  money  to  pay  a  nurse.  Says  R.  Jehudah  :  Come  and  see 
how  hard  it  is  for  heaven  to  change  the  fate  of  a  man  concern- 
ing his  livelihood,  that  the  nature  of  the  world  was  changed,  but 
not  his  fate.     Said  R.  Na'hman  :  It  is  proven  by  this  fact  that 


96  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

a  miracle  occurred,  but  he  was  not  provided  with  means  for^ay- 
ing  a  wet-nurse. 

The  rabbis  taught  "  It  happened  once  that  a  man  wedded 
a  woman  with  a  mutilated  hand,  and  did  not  discover  it  until 
she  died."  Said  Rabh :  "  Behold  how  chaste  this  woman  must 
have  been,  for  even  her  husband  did  not  discover  it."  R.  Hyya 
retorted:  "  This  is  nothing!  It  is  natural  with  women  to  hide 
their  defects,  but  note  the  modesty  of  the  man,  who  did  not 
discover  it  in  his  wife." 

"  Rams  may  go  out  with  (leather)  bands  around  their  pri- 
vates." •  What  kind  of  bands?  Said  R.  Huna:  "  Hobbles." 
Ulla  said  they  were  leather  bands  tied  around  their  breasts  to 
prevent  them  from  the  attack  of  wolves.  Do  wolves  attack 
only  the  males  and  never  the  females  ?  It  is  because  the  males 
always  go  ahead  of  the  flocks.  Do  wolves  attack  only  the 
advance  of  a  flock  and  never  the  rear  ?  It  is  because  the  males 
are  usually  fat.  Are  there  no  fat  sheep  among  the  females  ? 
Moreover,  how  can  the  wolves  know  which  is  which  ?  It  is 
because  the  males  generally  lift  their  heads  and  look  around 
cautiously.  R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak  said  they  wore  leather  bands 
tied  around  their  privates  to  prevent  them  from  having  coition 
with  the  females.  Whence  this  inference  ?  From  the  last 
clause  of  the  Mishna,  "  The  sheep  may  go  out  with  their  tails 
tied  up,"  in  order  that  the  males  may  have  coition  with  them; 
hence  we  infer  that  the  first  clause  is  for  the  purpose  of  prevent- 
ing them. 

"  She-goats  may  go  out  with  a  bag  tied  around  their  udders." 
It  was  taught:  Rabh  said  that  the  Halakha  prevails  in  accord- 
ance with  R.  Jehudah ;  and  Samuel  held  it  to  be  in  accordance 
with  R.  Jossi.  Others  taught :  Rabh  and  Samuel  did  not 
directly  cite  the  opinions  of  the  Tanaim  just  mentioned,  but 
they  themselves  decreed  as  follows:  Rabh  held  that  she-goats 
may  go  out  with  their  udders  tied  up  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting lactation,  but  not  to  save  the  milk.  Samuel,  how- 
ever, prohibited  this  in  both  cases.  Others  again  say:  R. 
Jehudah  b.  Bathyra  long  ago  decided  the  same  as  Rabh,  but 
added  that  on  account  of  the  impossibility  of  determining  what 
purpose  the  tying  up  of  the  udders  would  serve,  it  is  entirely 
prohibited.  Thereupon  Samuel  decided  that  the  Halakha  pre- 
vails with  him.  Rabbin  upon  his  arrival  in  Babylon  said  that  R. 
Johanan  said  that  the  Halakha  prevails  in  accordance  with  the 
first  Tana. 


TRACT    SABBATH. 


97 


MISHNA  ///. :  And  what  must  (animals)  not  go  about  in  ? 
The  camel  with  a  crupper,  nor  with  hobbles  on  both  legs,  nor 
with  the  front  leg  hobbled  with  the  hind.  This  law  is  applied 
to  all  other  animals.  It  is  not  allowed  to  tie  camels  together 
with  a  rope  and  then  lead  them ;  but  one  is  permitted  to  hold 
in  his  hand  the  several  ropes  on  the  camels  and  lead  them,  pro- 
vided the  ropes  are  not  twisted  into  one. 

GEMARA:  A  Boraitha  in  addition  to  this  Mishna  states: 
"  If  the  crupper  is  fastened  to  the  hump  as  well  as  to  the  tail  of 
the  camel,  it  may  go  about."  Rabba  b.  R.  Huna  says:  A  camel 
may  go  about  with  a  pad  under  its  tail  (to  prevent  friction). 

One  is  not  to  tic  camels.''     What  is  the  reason  ?     Said  R 
Ashi :  Because  it  looks  like  leading  them  to  market. 

"  But  one  is  permitted  to  hold  in  his  hand,''  etc.  Said  R. 
Ashi :  This  law  was  stated  only  concerning  (Kilaim),  and 
hence  the  teacher  means  to  say,  provided  he  docs  not  tie  or 
twist  them.  Samuel  said:  And  provided  the  cords  do  not 
protrude  from  his  hand  as  much  as  the  length  of  a  span.  Was 
it  not  taught  at  the  school  of  Samuel,  two  spans  ?  Said  Abayi : 
From  the  difference  between  Samuel  himself  and  his  school  we 
infer  that  Samuel  came  to  teach  us  how  to  practise.  But  did 
not  a  Boraitha  state :  Provided  he  lifts  (the  cords)  from  the 
ground  one  span  (but  there  is  no  restriction  as  to  the  quantity 
protruding  from  his  hands)  ?  The  non-restriction  of  the  quan- 
tity of  cord  applies  only  to  the  amount  of  cord  used  for  the  dis- 
tance between  the  animal  and  the  man's  hand.  (In  that  case 
the  quantity  is  unlimited.  The  quantity  of  cord,  however,  pro- 
truding from  the  man's  hand  must  not  exceed  one  span ;  so  also 
the  distance  from  the  ground  to  the  cords  must  be  at  least  one 
span.) 

MISHNA  IV.  :  The  ass  is  not  to  go  out  with  a  rug,  unless 
fastened,  neither  with  a  bell  that  has  been  muffled,  nor  with 
a  collar  on  his  neck,  nor  with  ankle-boots.  The  hens  are  not  to 
go  out  with  cords  tied  to  them,  nor  with  straps  on  their  feet. 
Rams  are  not  to  go  out  with  carts  tied  to  their  tails;  nor  sheep 
with  sneezing-wood;  the  calf  with  the  reed  yoke,  nor  the  cow 
with  the  skin  of  a  hedgehog  (tied  to  the  udder),  nor  with  a  strap 
(between  her  horns).  The  cow  of  R.  Elazar  b.  Azarya  went 
out  with  a  strap  between  the  horns  against  the  approval  of  the 
rabbis. 

GEMARA:  "Neither  with  a  bell  tJtat  Juts  been  muffled."' 
For  it  looks  like  bringing  it  to  market. 

VOL.  I. — 7 


98  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

**  Nor  with  a  collar  on  his  neck."  Said  R.  Huna:  With  a 
collar  underneath  his  jowls.  What  was  the  collar  intended  for  ? 
To  prevent  irritation  of  any  wounds  that  may  have  been  on  the 
neck. 

"Nor  with  ankle-boots."  To  prevent  injury  from  kicking 
one  foot  against  the  other. 

"  The  hetis  ivith  cords."     As  a  distinguishing  mark. 

"  Nor  with  straps  on  their  feet."  To  prevent  damage  arising 
from  jumping. 

"  The  rams  with  carts."  To  prevent  the  ends  of  their  tails 
from  damage  through  trailing  on  the  ground. 

"Nor  sheep  with  sneezing-wood."  (What  is  it?)  Said  R. 
Huna:  "  In  seaports  there  is  to  be  found  a  kind  of  tree  called 
'Hanun,  which  produces  sneezing-wood,  which  when  held  under 
a  sheep's  nose  produces  sneezing,  and  while  sneezing  such  ver- 
min as  may  have  lodged  in  the  sheep's  head  are  expelled.  If 
such  be  the  case,  may  rams  not  go  out  with  it  either  ?  For 
rams  sneezing-wood  is  not  used  at  all.  They  butt  with  their 
heads,  therefore  vermin  drops  out  of  its  own  accord. 

"  Nor  the  cow  with  the  skin  of  the  hedgehog"  etc.  To  pre- 
vent leeches  from  sticking  to  the  udder. 

"  Nor  with  the  strap  between  the  horns."  Why  not  ?  Either 
in  accordance  with  Rabh,  who  forbids  it  at  any  rate,  or  in  accord- 
ance with  Samuel,  who  forbids  it  as  an  ornament. 

The  cow  of  R.  Elazar  b.  Azarya,"  etc.  Had  he  only  one 
cow  ?  Did  not  Rabh,  or  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh,  say 
that  R.  Elazar  b.  Azarya  gave  yearly  as  tithes  from  his  herds 
as  many  as  twelve  thousand  calves  ?  We  have  learned  (in  a 
Boraitha):  The  cow  in  question  was  not  his,  but  a  neighboring 
woman's.  It  is  only  ascribed  to  him  because  he  did  not  protest 
against  it. 

Rabh,  R.  Hanina,  R.  Jonathan,  and  R.  Habiba  [in  the  whole 
Section  of  Festivals,  where  the  four  names  stand  together,  R. 
Jonathan  must  be  read  instead  of  R.  Johanan]  all  said :  He 
who  has  the  power  to  protest  against  wrong  in  his  house  and 
does  not  do  so,  is  responsible  for  (the  transgressions  of)  every 
one  in  his  house.  In  the  city  (where  his  protest  would  be  rec- 
ognized), he  is  responsible  for  the  transgressions  of  every  one  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city;  and  if  he  is  such  a  great  man  that 
his  word  would  be  respected  in  the  whole  world,  he  is  punished 
for  (transgressions  of  all)  mankind.  Said  R.  Papa:  "And  the 
Exilarchs  are  punished  for  the  sins  of  all  Israel."     As  R.  Hanina 


TRACT   SABBATH.  99 

said:  It  is  written  :  "  The  Eternal  will  enter  into  judgment  with 
the  elders  of  his  people  and  with  the  princes  thereof"  [Isaiah, 
iii.  14].  If  the  princes  sinned,  what  have  the  elders  to  do  with 
it  ?  The  intent  is  to  say:  Because  the  elders  did  not  protest 
against  the  princes. 

R.  Jehudah  sat  before  Samuel,  when  a  woman  came  in  com- 
plaining, and  Samuel  paid  no  attention  to  her.  Said  R.  Jehu- 
dah to  him:  "  Is  Master  unaware  of  the  passage:  Whosoever 
stops  his  ears  at  cry  of  the  poor,  he  also  shall  cry  himself  and 
not  be  heard  '*  ?  [Prov.  xxi.  13].  Samuel  retorted:  "  Ingenious 
scholar !  Your  head-master  (meaning  himself)  is  on  safe  ground, 
but  our  Chief  is  responsible,"  Mar  Uqba,  being  at  that  time 
Chief  of  the  Judges  (it  was  his  affair),  for  it  is  written  [Jerem. 
xxi.  12]:  "  O  House  of  David!  Thus  hath  said  the  Lord:  Ex- 
ercise justice  on  (every)  morning,  and  deliver  him  that  is  robbed 
out  of  the  hand  of  the  oppressor,  lest  my  fury  go  forth  like  fire, 
and  burn  so  that  none  can  quench  it,  because  of  the  evil  of  your 
doings." 

Said  R.  Zera  to  R.  Simon:  "  Let  Master  reprove  the  Exi- 
larch's  retainers."  He  answered:  "They  care  not  for  me." 
Rejoined  R.  Zera :  Even  if  they  do  not  care,  reprove  them 
anyhow;  for  R.  Aha  b.  Hanina  said:  The  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He,  never  issued  a  benevolent  decree,  which  He  subse- 
quently reversed  into  malevolence,  except  in  this  sole  instance, 
which  is  written  [Ezekiel,  ix.  41]:  "And  the  Lord  said  unto 
him.  Pass  through  the  midst  of  the  city,  through  the  midst  of 
Jerusalem,  and  inscribe  a  mark  upon  the  foreheads,"  etc.  Thus 
said  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  to  Gabriel:  "  Go  and  set  the 
mark  (the  Hebrew  letter  Tabh)  in  ink  upon  the  foreheads  of  the 
righteous,  that  the  angels  of  destruction  have  no  power  over 
them ;  and  the  same  mark  in  blood  upon  the  foreheads  of  the 
wicked,  that  the  angels  of  destruction  may  have  power  over 
them."  The  Party  of  Prosecution  pleaded  before  Him  in  these 
terms:  "  Lord  of  the  Universe,  what  is  the  difference  between 
the  two?"  He  answered:  "Those  are  perfectly  righteous 
and  these  completely  wicked."  Again  the  Party  of  Prosecution 
pleaded:  "  Lord  of  the  Universe!  It  was  in  their  power  to 
protest  (against  wickedness),  and  they  did  not."  And  the 
Lord  answered:  "It  is  known  to  me  that,  had  they  protested, 
their  protest  would  have  been  of  no  avail."  But  they  pleaded 
once  more:  "  Lord  of  the  Universe!  It  is  known  to  Thee;  but 
was  it  known  to  them  ?  "     And  thus  it  is  written  :  "  Slay  utter!}- 


loo  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

old  and  young,  both  maids,  little  children,  and  women,  and  at 
my  sanctuary  shall  ye  begin."  Then  they  began  with  the  old 
men  who  were  before  the  house"  [Ezek.  ix.  6].  And  R. 
Joseph  taught:  "  Do  not  read  *  my  sanctuary,*  but  '  my  sancti- 
fied,' which  means  the  men  who  have  performed  all  the  laws 
prescribed  in  the  Torah,  which  begins  with  all  the  letters  of  the 
alphabet.  And  it  is  also  written  [ibid.,  ibid.  2]:  "And  behold, 
six  men  came  from  the  direction  of  the  upper  gate  .... 
beside  the  copper  altar."  Was,  then,  the  copper  altar  at  that 
time  ?  Was  it  not  hidden  already  in  the  time  of  Solomon  ? 
It  means  that  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  told  them  they 
shall  begin  from  that  place  where  they  used  to  sing  hymns 
before  Him.  And  who  are  the  six  men  (messengers)  ?  Said 
R.  Hisda:  "Anger,  wrath,  rage,  destruction,  devastation,  and 
ruin." 

Why  just  the  letter  Tabh  ?  Said  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish: 
"  The  Tabh  is  the  last  letter  on  the  seal  of  the  Holy  One, 
blessed  be  He;  for  R.  Hanina  said  (the  inscription  on)  the  seal 
of  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  is  Emeth  (truth)  (and  the  last 
letter  of  the  Hebrew  word  Emeth  is  a  Tabh). 

It  being  evident  from  the  verse  [Ezek.  ix.  2]  that  Zechuth 
Aboth  *  no  longer  existed,  at  what  time  shall  we  assume  that  it 
ceased  ? 

Said  Rabh:  From  the  time  of  the  prophet  Hosea  b.  Beeri, 
as  it  is  written  [Hosea,  ii.  12]:  "  And  no  man  will  deliver  her 
out  of  my  hand,"  meaning  that  even  the  righteousness  of  the 
ancestors  will  be  of  no  avail. 

Samuel  said:  From  the  time  of  the  King  Chazael  of  Syria, 
as  it  is  written  [II  Kings,  xiii.  23]:  "And  the  Lord  became 
gracious  unto  them,  and  had  mercy  on  them,  and  turned  his 
regard  unto  them,  because  of  his  covenant  with  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  would  not  destroy  them,  and  he  cast 
them  not  off  from  his  presence  until  now."  Thus,  He  will 
remember  his  covenant  only  "  until  now,"  but  not  after  that. 

R.  Jehoshua  b.  Levi  said:  From  the  time  of  Elijah  the 
prophet,  as  it  is  written  [I  Kings,  xviii.  36:  "  Elijah  the  prophet 
came  near  and  said,  O  Lord,  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of 
Israel,  this  day  let  it  be  known  that  thou  art  God  in  Israel," 

*  Zechuth  Aboth  is  a  term  implying  the  benefits  bestowed  upon  men  in  consid- 
eration of  the  virtues  and  righteousness  of  their  ancestors,  and  iS  based  upon  the  pas- 
sage in  the  15ible  :  "  Keeping  i<indness  unto  tlie  thousandth  generation,"  etc.  [Ex. 
xxxiv.  7]  ;  and  also  upon  the  verse  Ex.  xxxii.  13. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  loi 

etc.,  and  means  to  infer  that  only"  this  day"  the  Lord  will 
remember  Zechuth  Aboth,  and  not  after  this  day. 

R.  Johanan  says:  From  the  time  of  Ilezekiah  the  King,  as 
it  is  written  [Isaiah,  ix.  6j :  "  To  establish  it  and  to  support  it 
through  justice  and  righteousness,  from  henceforth  and  unto 
eternity:  the  zeal  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts  will  do  this,"  implying 
that  after  that  the  favors  of  the  Lord  will  not  be  bestowed  by 
virtue  of  Zechuth  Aboth,  but  through  His  zeal. 

R.  Ami  said :  Death  is  the  result  of  sin,  and  affliction  the 
result  of  transgression:  death  the  result  of  sin,  for  it  is  written 
[Ezekiel,  xviii.  20]:  "The  soul  that  sins,  it  shall  die,"  etc.; 
affliction  the  result  of  transgression:  for  it  is  written  [Psalms, 
Ixxxix.  33]:  "  And  I  will  visit  their  transgressions  with  a  lash 
and  their  iniquity  with  stripes." 

An  objection  was  raised:  One  of  the  teachers  said:  The 
angels  (once)  said  to  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He:  "  Lord  of 
the  Universe!  Why  didst  Thou  punish  Adam  with  death?" 
The  Lord  answered:  "  Because  I  gave  him  a  light  command- 
ment, and  he  failed  to  observe  it."  The  angels  again  said  unto 
Him:  "  Why  did  Moses  and  Aaron  die?  Did  they  not  observe 
all  the  laws  of  the  Torah  ?"  And  He  answered  [Eccl.  ix.  2]: 
"  The  same  fate  befalls  the  righteous  as  the  wicked."  Hence 
death  is  not  the  result  of  sin !  He  (R.  Ami)  is  in  accordance 
with  the  Tana  of  the  following  Boraitha :  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar 
said :  Even  the  death  of  Moses  and  Aaron  was  the  result  of 
their  sins,  for  it  is  written  [Numb.  xx.  12]:  "  Because  you  had 
no  faith  in  me";  (and  the  inference  thereof  is)  if  they  had  had 
faith,  they  would  not  have  died. 

Another  objection  was  raised :  (There  is  a  tradition :)  Only 
four  men  died  in  consequence  of  original  sign.  They  are  Ben- 
jamin ben  Jacob;  Amram,  the  father  of  Moses;  Jesse,  the 
father  of  David ;  and  Kilab  ben  David.  Whose  opinion  does 
this  Boraitha  agree  with  ?  The  Tana  who  related  the  legend  of 
the  angels  holds  that  Moses  and  Aaron  also  died  in  consequence 
of  original  sin.  So  must  be  then  in  accordance  with  R.  Simeon 
b.  Elazar,  as  said  above.  Thus  we  see  that  although  Moses  and 
Aaron  died  on  account  of  their  own  sins,  still  death  without  sin 
and  affliction  without  transgression  are  possible  ;  hence  R.  Ami's 
theory  is  objected  to. 

R.  Samuel  b.  Nahmeni  in  the  name  of  R.  Jonathan  said: 
"  Whoever  says  that  Reuben  (the  patriarch  Jacob's  son)  sinned 
with  his  father's  wife  is  in  error,  because  it  is  written  [Gen. 


I02  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

XXXV.  22] :  "  Now  the  sons  of  Jacob  were  twelve."  This  proves 
to  us  that  they  were  all  equal  (in  righteousness);  but  what  does 
the  verse  [ibid.,  ibid.]  which  states  that  he  did  He  with  Bilha, 
etc.,  signify  ?  That  Reuben  deranged  his  father's  bed,  and  the 
Scripture  considers  this  equal  to  his  having  sinned  with  her. 
There  is  another  Boraitha:  Simeon  b.  Elazar  said:  That  right- 
eous man  (Reuben)  is  innocent  of  the  crime.  The  act  with  his 
father's  wife  was  never  consummated ;  as,  is  it  possible  that 
a  man  whose  descendants  will  stand  on  the  Mount  Ebol  and 
proclaim:  "  Cursed  be  he  who  lies  with  his  father's  wife  "  [Deut. 
xxvii.  20],  would  commit  such  a  crime  ?  But  what  does  the 
above-cited  verse  mean  ?  He  (Reuben)  resented  the  injustice 
done  his  mother  and  said:  "  When  my  mother's  sister  lived  and 
proved  a  vexation  to  my  mother,  it  was  bearable ;  but  to  have 
my  mother's  servant  prove  a  vexation  to  her,  this  is  unbear- 
able !  "  Therefore  he  removed  the  bed  of  Bilha  from  his  father's 
bedroom  (which  the  verse  holds  tantamount  to  lying  with  her). 
R.  Samuel  b.  Nahmeni  in  the  name  of  R.  Jonathan  said:  He 
who  maintains  that  the  sons  of  Eli  have  sinned  is  nothing  but 
in  error,  as  it  is  written  [I  Samuel,  i.  3] :  "  .  .  .  two  sons 
.  .  .  priests  of  the  Lord."  (And  if  they  would  have  sinned, 
the  verse  would  not  elevate  them  with  such  an  honor.)  [He 
holds  with  Rabh's  theory  farther  on;  however,  he  differs  from 
him  concerning  'Haphni,  for  the  reason  that  he  is  mentioned 
together  with  Pinhas  in  the  verse  cited.] 

Rabh  said :  Pinhas  did  not  sin,  as  it  is  written  :  ' '  And  Ahiya, 
the  son  of  Ahitub,  Ichabad's  brother,  the  son  of  Pinhas,  son  of 
Eli,  was  priest  of  the  Lord  at  Shilah  "  [I  Samuel,  xiv.  3].  Is 
it  possible  that  the  Scriptures  would  describe  minutely  the  pedi- 
gree of  a  sinner?  Is  it  not  written:  "  The  Lord  will  cut  off, 
unto  the  man  that  doeth  this,  son  and  grandson,"  etc.  [Mai.  ii. 
12].  That  was  explained  to  mean,  if  he  be  simply  an  Israelite 
he  shall  have  here  no  master  among  the  teachers  and  no  scholar 
among  disciples,  and  if  he  is  a  descendant  of  priests,  he  shall 
have  no  son  who  may  bring  the  offering.  From  this  we  must 
conclude  that  Pinhas  is  innocent  of  guilt.  Is  it  not  written, 
however,  "sons  of  Belial"  (and  thus  Pinhas  is  included)?  It 
was  because  he  should  have  protested  against  it,  and  did  not, 
the  Scripture  considers  it  as  if  he  had  also  sinned. 

The  same  said  again:  He  who  thinks  the  sons  of  Samuel 
sinned,  is  also  in  error.  It  is  written :  '*  And  they  did  not  walk 
in  his  ways"  [I  Sam.  viii.  3].     True,  they  did  not  walk  in  His 


TRACT   SABBATH.  103 

ways,  but  they  sinned  not.  How,  then,  is  the  passage  to  be 
upheld:  "And  they  but  turned  aside  after  lucre  and  took 
bribes"  ?  [ibid.,  ibid.].  They  did  not  act  as  their  father;  for 
Samuel  the  righteous  travelled  through  all  Israel  and  dispensed 
justice  in  every  city,  as  it  is  written:  "  And  he  went  from  year 
to  year  in  circuit  to  Beth-El  and  Gilgal  and  Mizpah,  and  judged 
Israel"  [ibid.  vii.  6];  but  they  did  not  act  in  this  way.  They 
dwelt  in  their  respective  places  in  order  to  increase  the  fees  of 
their  messengers  and  scribes. 

On  this  point  the  following  Tanalm  differ.  R.  Meir  says: 
They  (who  were  Levites  themselvesj  claimed  their  priestly  allow- 
ance personally  (and  thereby  deprived  the  poor  priests  and 
Levites  of  their  shares,  for  being  also  judges  they  were  never 
refused).  R.  Jehudah  says:  They  had  commercial  relations 
with  private  people  (and  were  sometimes  compelled  to  pervert 
justice).  R.  Aqiba  says:  They  took  tithes  (to  a  greater  extent 
than  they  were  allowed  to  do)  by  force.  R.  Jossi  says:  They 
took  by  force  the  (priests')  portions  (shoulder-blades,  jowls,  and 
stomachs  of  a  slaughtered  animal). 

He  said  again  :  "  The  same  error  is  made  concerning  David." 
Said  Rabh :  Rabbi,  who  is  a  descendant  of  the  house  of  David, 
endeavored  to  interpret  favorably  the  passage :  "  Wherefore  hast 
thou  despised  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  do  what  is  evil  in  his 
eyes  ?"  [II  Samuel,  xii.  9].  He  said:  This  evil  deed  is  differ- 
ent (in  words  and  language  from  other  evil  deeds  whereof  men- 
tion is  made  in  the  Scriptures).  In  all  other  instances  it  says, 
"  and  he  has  done,"  but  here  it  says,  "to  do.''  This  implies 
that  he  "  wanted  to  do  "  (but  did  not  do).  "  Uriah  the  Hittite 
thou  hast  slain  with  the  sword  "  [ibid.,  ibid.].  (As  a  rebel)  he 
should  have  had  him  tried  by  the  Sanhedrin,  which  he  did 
not.  "  And  his  wife  thou  hast  taken  to  thee  for  a  wife."  He 
had  a  right  to  her,  for  R.  Samuel  b.  Nahmeni  in  the  name  of 
R.  Jonathan  said:  Whoever  went  to  war  with  David  divorced 
his  wife  previously.  "  Him  thou  hast  slain  M-ith  the  sword 
(used)  for  the  children  of  Amon."  As  he  will  not  be  punished 
on  account  of  the  children  of  Amon,  so  will  he  also  not  be  pun- 
ished for  the  death  of  Uriah.  What  is  the  reason  ?  He  ( L^riah) 
was  a  rebel. 

Said  Rabh :  "  Note  well  the  life  of  David,  and  you  find  noth- 
ing blamable  save  the  affair  of  Uriah,  as  it  is  written  [I  Kin^s, 
XV.  5]  :  "  Save  only  in  the  matter  of  Uriah  the  Hittite." 

Abayi   the  elder  has  contradicted   the  above  statement  of 


I04  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Rabh  from  his  own  statement  elsewhere  that  David  accepted 
slander?  This  difficulty  remains.  What  was  it  ?  That  which 
is  written  [II  Samuel,  ix.  4] :  "  And  the  king  said  unto  him, 
Where  is  he  ?  And  Ziba  said  unto  the  king,  Behold,  he  is  in 
the  house  of  Machir,  the  son  of  'Ammiel,  in  {b')  Lo-debar"; 
farther  on  it  is  written  [ibid.  5]:  "And  David  the  king  sent, 
and  had  him  taken  out  of  the  house  of  Machir,  the  son  of  'Am- 
miel, from  (w')  Lo-debar."*  Thus,  when  David  found  him 
"  doing  something  (good),"  whereas  Ziba  informed  the  King 
that  he  was  "  doing  nothing  (good),"  hence  David  was  con- 
vinced that  Ziba  was  a  liar;  why,  then,  did  David  give  heed  to 
his  slander  afterwards,  for  it  is  written  [ibid.  xvi.  3]:  "  And  the 
king  said.  And  where  is  thy  master's  son  ?  And  Ziba  said  unto 
the  king.  Behold,  he  remaineth  at  Jerusalem;  for  he  said. 
To-day  will  the  house  of  Israel  restore  unto  me  the  kingdom  of 
my  father."  But  whence  the  adduction  that  David  accepted 
slander?  From  what  is  written  further  [ibid.  4]:  "Then  said 
the  king  to  Ziba,  Behold,  thine  shall  be  all  that  pertaineth  to 
Mephibosheth.     And  Ziba  said,"  etc. 

Samuel  said:  David  did  not  accept  slander.  He  (himself) 
saw  in  Mephibosheth's  conduct  that  which  corroborated  Ziba's 
calumny,  as  it  is  written  [ibid.  xix.  25]:  "And  Mephibosheth 
the  (grand-)son  of  Saul  came  down  to  meet  the  king,  and  he 
had  not  dressed  his  feet,  nor  trimmed  his  beard,  nor  washed  his 
clothes."  (This  was  considered  disrespect);  further,  it  is  writ- 
ten [ibid.  28]:  "And  he  slandered  thy  servant  unto  my  lord 
the  king,"  etc.;  and  further  [ibid.  31]:  "And  Mephibosheth 
said  unto  the  king,  Yea,  let  him  take  the  whole,  since  that  my 
lord  the  king  is  come  (back)  in  peace  unto  his  own  house." 
Now,  this  last  verse  (read  between  the  lines)  really  means:  "  I 
have  anticipated  your  safe  arrival  home  with  anxiety,  and  since 
you  act  toward  me  in  such  a  manner,  I  have  nothing  to  com- 
plain of  to  you  but  to  Him  who  brought  you  safely  back." 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said:  "  Had  David  not 
given  heed  to  slander,  the  kingdom  of  the  house  of  David  would 
never  have  been  divided,  neither  would  Israel  have  worshipped 
idols,  nor  would  we  have  been  exiled  from  our  land." 

The  same  rabbi  said :  He  who  believes  Solomon    guilty  of 

*  The  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  word  Blo-debar  is  :  he  does  nothing 
(good) ;  of  Mlo-debar :  he  is  very  busy  (doing  something  good).  Upon  the  differ- 
ence in  the  two  literal  meanings  of  the  two  words  Rabh  bases  the  untruth  of  Ziba's 
statement. 


TRACT    SAHBATll.  105 

idolatry  is  in  error.  This  theory  agrees  with  R.  Nathan,  who 
points  to  a  contradiction  between  the  two  following  passages  in 
the  very  same  verse  [I  Kings,  xi.  4] :  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  at 
the  time  when  Solomon  was  old,  that  his  wives  turned  away  his 
heart,"  etc.  ;  and  farther  on  [ibid.,  ibid.]  it  says:  "Like  the 
heart  of  David  his  father."  While  his  heart  was  not  as  perfect 
as  that  of  his  father  David,  still  he  did  not  sin.  Therefore  it 
must  be  said  that  it  means,  his  wives  turned  away  his  heart 
toward  idolatry,  but  still  he  did  not  practise  it.  This  is  sup- 
ported by  the  following  Boraitha:  R.  Jossi  said:  It  is  written 
[II  Kings,  iii.  13]:  "And  the  high  places  that  were  before 
Jerusalem,  which  were  to  the  right  of  the  mount  of  destruction, 
which  Solomon  the  King  of  Israel  had  built  for  Ashthoreth,  the 
abomination  of  the  Zidonians,"  etc.  Is  it  possible  that  neither 
Assa  nor  Jehosophath  had  cleared  them  out  before  Josiah  ? 
Did  not  Assa  and  Jehosophath  abolish  idolatry  in  Judea  ?  It 
follows,  then,  that  as  Josiah  is  given  credit  by  the  verse  in  the 
Scripture  for  having  abolished  the  worship  of  Ashthoreth,  the 
abomination  of  the  Zidonians,  although  at  his  time  it  had  been 
out  of  existence  for  a  long  time,  this  was  done  merely  because 
he  (Josiah)  had  abolished  other  later  forms  of  idolatry;  the  same 
rule  is  followed  in  the  case  of  Solomon;  while  he  himself  did 
not  build  the  Ashthoreth  of  the  Zidonians,  the  fact  that  he  did 
not  prevent  his  wives  from  doing  so  makes  him  responsible  in 
the  same  measure  as  if  he  had  committed  the  deed  himself. 
But  is  it  not  written  [I  Kings,  xi.  6]:  "  And  Solomon  did  what 
is  evil  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  "  ?  This  is  also  written  merely 
because  it  was  in  his  power  to  prevent  the  actions  of  his  wives, 
and  he  did  not  do  so;  hence  the  Scripture  ascribes  the  deed  to 
liim,  as  if  he  himself  had  committed  it. 

Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  It  would  have  been 
better  for  him  (Solomon)  to  have  been  an  actual  hireling  to  idol- 
atry than  to  be  accused  of  doing  what  is  evil  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Lord. 

Again  R.  Jehudah  said  in  Samuel's  name:  At  the  time  Solo- 
mon took  in  wedlock  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh,  she  brought  to 
him  about  a  thousand  different  musical  instruments.  Each  of 
these  was  used  for  separate  idols,  which  she  named  to  him,  and 
still  he  did  not  protest  against  it. 

The  same  said  again  in  the  name  of  the  same  authority:  At 
the  time  Solomon  took  in  wedlock  Pharaoh's  daughter  (the 
angel)  Gabriel  came  down  and  planted  a  cane  in  the  sea;  on  the 


io6  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

sand  that  accumulated  around  the  cane  a  great  city  was  after- 
ward built;  but  in  a  Boraitha  we  were  taught  that  the  miracle 
occurred  on  the  day  that  Jeroboam  introduced  the  two  golden 
calves,  one  each  in  Beth-El  and  Dan,  and  that  great  city  was 
Italia  of  Greece.* 

R.  Samuel  said:  Whoever  says  Josiah  sinned  is  also  in  error. 
It  is  written  [II  Kings,  xxii.  2]  :  "  And  he  did  what  was  right  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Lord  and  walked  in  the  ways  of  David  his  father 
and  turned  not  aside  to  the  right  or  to  the  left."  Is  this  not 
contradictory  to  the  verse  [II  Kings,  xxiii.  25],  "  that  returned 
to  the  Lord  with  all  his  heart."  How  is  the  "  returned  "  to  be 
understood  ?  He  must  have  sinned  in  order  to  return  ?  Nay; 
from  this  it  must  be  inferred  that  after  Josiah  attained  the  age 
of  eighteen,  he  refunded  from  his  private  purse  all  amounts  paid 
by  such  as  he  had  declared  guilty  (bound  to  pay)  from  the  time 
he  was  eight  years  old  (when  he  became  king).  This  is  the 
interpretation  of  "  returned  to  the  Lord." 

However,  this  differs  from  Rabh's  following  statement: 
"  None  is  greater  among  penitents  than  Josiah  in  his  time  and 
one  in  our  own  time.  And  who  is  he  ?  Aba,  the  father  of 
Jeremiah  b.  Aba.  Others  say  Aha,  the  brother  of  Aba,  father 
of  Jeremiah  b.  Aba,  for  the  aforesaid  teacher  said  Aba  and  Aha 
were  brothers.  Said  R.  Joseph:  There  is  yet  another  in  our 
own  time,  and  he  is  Ukban  b.  Ne'hemiah,  the  Exilarch.f 
"  Once  while  studying,"  said  R.  Joseph,  "  I  dozed  off  and  saw 
in  a  dream  an  angel  stretching  out  his  hands  and  accepting  his 
(Ukban's)  repentance." 

*  Rashi  added  to  this  that  the  Romans  took  away  this  city  from  the  Greeks,  and 
therefore  the  Roman  kingdom  is  called  Italy  ;  we,  however,  deem  it  an  error,  as  we 
have  found  that  such  a  city  is  in  Greece. 

f  The  text  states  :  "  And  that  is  Nathan  of  Zuzitha  "  ;  and  Rashi  tried  to  explain 
the  word  Zuzitha  "  with  sparks,"  or  because  the  angel  took  him  by  the  Zizith  (locks) 
of  his  head.  We  have  omitted  this  because  it  is  proved  jy  Abraham  Krochmal  in  his 
"  Remarks  to  the  Talmud,"  article  "  The  Chain  of  the  Exilarch,"  that  Ne'hemiah 
the  Exilarch  and  Nathan  the  Exilarch  were  of  two  different  times,  many  generations 
apart.     (See  there.) 


CHAPTER   VI. 

REGULATIONS    CONCERNING     WHAT     GARMENTS     (SERVING     AS    ORNA- 
MENTS)  WOMEN    MAY    GO    OUT    WITH    ON    THE    SABBATH. 

MISHNA  /.  :  In  what  (ornamental)  apparel  may  a  woman 
go  out,  and  in  what  may  she  not  go  out  ?  A  woman  is  not 
allowed  to  go  out  (even  in  private  ground)  either  with  woollen 
or  linen  bands  or  with  straps  on  her  head  to  keep  her  hair  in 
tresses  (as  a  precaution  lest  she  enter  public  ground  and  take  off 
the  bands  to  show  to  her  friends,  thereby  becoming  guilty  of 
carrj'ing  movable  property  for  a  distance  of  four  ells  or  more). 
Nor  is  she  to  bathe  herself  with  the  bands  on  unless  loosened. 
Nor  is  she  to  go  out  with  either  Totaphoth  or  Sarbitin  on, 
unless  they  are  fastened;*  nor  with  a  hood  in  public  ground, 
nor  with  gold  ornaments,  nor  with  nose-rings,  nor  with  finger- 
rings  that  have  no  seal,  nor  with  pins.  But  if  she  did  go  out 
with  these  things,  she  is  not  bound  to  bring  a  sin-offering  (as 
they  are  ornaments  and  not  burdens). 

GEMARA:  "  Bathing.''  Where  is  bathing  referred  to  (and 
what  has  it  to  do  with  the  Sabbath)  ?  Said  R.  Na'hman  b. 
Itz'hak  in  the  name  of  Rabba  b.  Abuhu  :  The  Mishna  means  to 
say:  What  is  the  reason  chat  a  woman  is  not  allowed  to  go  out 
with  either  woollen  or  linen  bands  ?  Because  the  sages  have 
decided  that  she  is  not  to  bathe  herself  with  them  on,  even  on 
week  days,  unless  loosened;  therefore  she  shall  not  (go  out  with 
them  on)  on  the  Sabbath  at  all,  lest  it  happen  that  she  become 
in  duty  bound  to  bathe  herself,t  and,  while  untying  her  hair, 
be  forced  to  carry  the  bands  in  public  ground  for  a  distance  of 
four  ells  or  more. 

*  In  the  Mishna  the  Hebrew  word  for  "fastened"  is  "  Tephurim,"  literally 
meaning  "  sewed  "  or  "  embroidered  "  ;  i.e.,  the  Totaphoth  and  Sarbitin  as  worn  by 
the  wealthy  were  ornaments  made  of  gold  or  silver  with  inscriptions  engraved  on 
them,  but  the  poor  made  them  of  various  colored  materials  (as  explained  in  the 
Gemara  farther  on)  and  embroidered  the  inscriptions  on  them.  The  prohibition  of  the 
Mishna  therefore  refers  only  to  the  wearing  of  such  ornaments  before  the  inscrip- 
tions were  either  engraved  or  embroidered  on  them.  Such  is  our  explanation  in  our 
*'  History  of  Amulets,"  pp.  11-15. 

f  After  menstruation,     Ste  Leviticus,  xv. 


io8  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

R.  Kahana  questioned  Rabli :  "What  about  a  hair-net?" 
Answered  Rabh:  "You  mean  to  say  a  woven  one?  Every- 
thing woven  has  not  been  restricted."  This  was  also  taught  in 
the  name  of  R.  Huna  b.  R.  Joshua.  According  to  others  the 
same  said:  "  I  have  seen  that  my  sisters  were  not  particular  to 
take  it  off  while  bathing."  And  the  difference  between  the 
two  versions  is  when  it  was  dirty;  according  to  the  first  version, 
it  does  not  matter,  as  everything  woven  was  not  restricted ;  and 
the  second  version,  where  particularity  is  the  case,  if  they  were 
dirty,  they  would  certainly  be  particular  to  take  them  off. 

An  objection  was  raised  from  Mishna  [Miqvaoth,  IX.  8]: 
"  When  a  person  bathes,  the  following  objects  cause  '  interven- 
tion '  (Chatzitzah):  Woollen  and  linen  bands  and  headstraps 
(used  by  maidens)."  R.  Jehudah  says  woollen  and  hair  bands 
do  not  cause  "  intervention,"  because  water  soaks  through 
them.  (Now  we  see  that  although  woollen  and  linen  bands  are 
woven,  yet  they  are  an  intervention.)  Said  R.  Huna:  "All 
this  concerns  only  maidens."  (And  they  are  an  intervention 
only  because  they  are  particular  about  it.) 

R.  Joseph  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehudah  said  that  Samuel  said 
that  the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Jehudah  in  the  case 
of  hair  bands  only.  Said  Abayi :  From  the  expression  "  the 
Halakha  prevails"  we  must  infer  that  there  is  a  controversy 
between  R.  Jehudah  and  the  Tana  of  the  above  Boraitha.  (The 
Tana  said  nothing  about  hair  bands.)  Shall  we  assume  that 
because  R.  Jehudah  declares  hair  bands  not  to  be  objects  of 
"  intervention,"  he  must  have  heard  the  previous  Tana  men- 
tion them  ?  Even  if  such  be  the  case,  it  is  not  probable  that 
R.  Jehudah  heard  that  the  Tana  agrees  with  him  on  that  point, 
and  hence  he  says:  "  If  he  agrees  with  me  on  this  point,  why 
not  in  the  other  instances  also?"  Said  R.  Na'hman  in  the 
name  of  Samuel:  Read,  The  sages  agree  with  R.  Jehudah  with 
respect  to  hair  bands. 

This  is  supported  by  a  Boraitha.  Woollen  bands  cause  inter- 
vention, but  hair  bands  do  not.  R.  Jehudah,  however,  said: 
"  Neither  of  them  causes  intervention." 

Said  R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak:  It  seems  to  be  so  from  the 
expression  of  our  Mishna:  "A  woman  may  go  out  with  hair 
bands,  be  they  her  own  or  her  friends'."  Whose  opinion  does 
this  Mishna  represent  ?  Can  we  say  R.  Jehudah's  ?  He  per- 
mits even  woollen  bands.  We  must  say  it  is  in  accordance  with 
the  above  rabbis;  hence  they  do  not  differ  as  regards  hair  bands. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  109 

*'  Nor  -with  Totap/ioth."  What  arc  "  Totaphoth  "  ?  Said 
R.  Joseph:  "  A  bahn  bandage  for  sanitary  use  {Humrate  diqc- 
tiphta). ' '  * 

Said  Abayi  to  him  :  "  Then  let  it  be  permitted  as  an  amulet 
made  by  a  reliable  expert."  (During  Abayi's  time  this  diffi- 
culty was  not  solved.)  R.  Jehudah,  however,  in  the  name  of 
Abayi  said:t  "  It  is  an  Absayim  "  (a  gold  ornament).  This  is 
supported  in  the  following  Boraitha :  "  A  woman  may  go  out 
with  a  gilded  hair-net,  and  Totaphoth  or  Sarbitin  when  fastened 
to  the  hair-net."  What  are  Totaphoth  and  what  Sarbitin  ? 
Said  R.  Abuhu :  "  The  former  are  bands  that  reach  from  ear  to 
car,  and  the  latter  bands  that  reach  from  temple  to  temple." 
R.  Huna  said :  "The  poor  make  them  of  all  kinds  of  colored 
material,  and  the  rich  make  them  of  gold  or  silver." 

"  Nor  ivith  a  hood.''  Said  R.  Yanai :  "  I  cannot  understand 
what  kind  of  a  hood  the  Mishna  means;  is  it  a  slave's  hood  that 
it  prohibits  and  permits  a  woollen  hood,  or  does  it  prohibit 
woollen  hoods  and  so  much  more  slaves'  hoods  ?  Said  R. 
Abuhu :  It  seems  that  a  woollen  hood  is  meant.  And  so  we 
have  learned  plainly  in  the  following  Boraitha:  "  A  woman  may 
go  out  with  a  hood  and  head  ornament  in  her  yard."  R.  Simeon 
b.  Elazar  says:  With  a  hood  even  in  a  public  ground.  "  It  is 
a  rule,"  said  he,  "  that  anything  below  the  *  Shebha'ha  '  (hair- 
net) is  permitted  to  be  worn,  but  anything  above  it  is  not. 
Samuel,  however,  said  the  Mishna  alludes  to  the  slave's  hood. 

Did,  indeed,  Samuel  say  so  ?  Did  he  not  say  the  slave  may 
go  out  with  the  mark  (he  wears)  around  his  neck,  but  not  with 
the  mark  on  his  clothes  ?  This  presents  no  diflficulty.  The 
former  applies  to  the  mark  made  for  him  by  his  master  (in  which 
case  there  is  no  fear  of  the  slave  removing  and  carr)'ing  it),  while 
the  latter  applies  to  the  mark  made  b}'  himself.  What  meaning 
do  you  attach  to  Samuel's  statement  ?  If  he  permits  the  wear- 
ing of  the  mark  on  the  slave's  neck  because  the  master  made  it 
and  the  slave  will  fear  to  remove  it,  could  not  the  master  also 
make  the  mark  on  the  slave's  clothes  ?  Yea,  but  the  slave 
might  lose  the  mark,  and  for  fear  of  his  master  he  will  fold  up 
his  coat  and  carry  it  on  his  shoulders  (in  public  ground).  And 
according  to  R.  Itz'hak  b.  Joseph  it  is  prohibited.     This  is  also 

*  For  the  explanation  of  Humiate  liiqetiphta  see  our  "  History  of  Amulets," 
p.  14. 

t  This  R.  Jehudah  is  probaby  R.  Jehudah  of  Diphta,  for  the  R.  Jehudah  gener. 
ally  cited  died  on  the  day  of  .Vbayi's  biith.     See  our  "  History  of  Amulets,"  etc. 


no  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

supported  by  a  Boraitha,  which  teaches  us  distinctly  that  the 
slave  may  go  out  with  the  mark  on  his  neck,  but  not  on  his 
clothes.  In  like  manner  Samuel  once  said  to  R.  Hanina  b. 
Shila:  "  None  of  the  rabbis  that  call  on  the  Exilarch  should 
go  out  with  their  insignia  on  their  clothes  (on  the  Sabath)  save 
you.  He  would  not  be  angry  with  you  were  you  to  go  to  him 
without  them  (hence,  not  being  a  necessary  burden,  you  may 
wear  them  or  not,  as  you  choose)." 

The  master  said:  "  Not  with  a  bell,"  etc.  Why  not  ?  Lest 
it  break  off  and  one  may  carry  it.  Then  why  should  the  same 
not  be  feared  in  regard  to  a  bell  attached  to  his  clothes  ?  Here 
a  bell  is  treated  of  that  was  made  by  an  expert  and  was  woven 
right  in  with  the  cloth.  This  is  also  in  accord  with  what  R, 
Huna  b.  R.  Joshua  said:  "  Everything  that  is  woven  they  did 
not  restrict." 

"  Nor  with  a  golden  ornament.''  What  was  this  golden  orna- 
ment ?  Said  Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan: 
"  A  golden  (ornament  with  an  engraving  of  the  city  of)  Jeru- 
salem on  it,"  such  as  R.  Aqiba  made  for  his  wife. 

The  rabbis  taught:  A  woman  shall  not  go  out  wearing  a 
golden  ornament ;  but  if  she  did  so,  she  becomes  liable  to  bring 
a  sin-offering.  So  is  the  decree  of  R.  Meir,  but  the  sages  say: 
She  must  not  go  out  wearing  it ;  if  she  did,  however,  she  is  not 
culpable.  But  R.  Eliezer  said:  A  woman  may  go  out  wearing  a 
golden  ornament  to  commence  with.  Wherein  do  they  differ  ? 
R.  Meir  holds  it  to  be  a  burden,  and  the  rabbis  hold  it  to  be  an 
ornament ;  then  why  should  she  not  wear  it  to  commence  with  ? 
Lest  she  take  it  off  to  show  it  to  her  friends  and  thus  happen  to 
carry  it;  but  R.  Eliezer  reasons  differently.  Who  generally  go 
out  with  such  valuable  golden  ornaments  ?  Prominent  women ; 
and  prominent  women  will  not  remove  them  for  the  purpose  of 
exhibiting  them  to  friends. 

Rabh  prohibits  the  wearing  of  a  crown-shaped  ornament,  and 
Samuel  permits  it.  Both  agree  that  the  wearing  of  a  crown- 
shaped  ornament  is  permissible,  ;as  there  is  no  fear  that  the 
woman  will  remove  it;  where  they  do  differ,  however,  is  as  to 
a  golden  and  jewelled  ornament.  The  former  holds  that  there 
is  fear  of  her  removing  it  in  order  to  exhibit  it,  and  thus  prob- 
ably happen  to  carry  it,  while  the  latter  contends  that  as  only 
prominent  women  wear  such  costly  ornaments  no  fear  need  be 
entertained  on  that  score. 

Said  R.  Samuel  b.  b.  JTrMia  to   R.   Joseph:    You  distinctly 


TRACT   SABBATH.  iii 

told  us  in  the  name  of  Rabh  that  an  ornament  in  the  shape  of 
a  crown  may  be  worn.* 

Levi  t  lectured  in  Neherdai  that  a  crown-shaped  ornament 
may  be  worn ;  whereupon  twenty-four  women  in  Neherdai  went 
out  with  crown-shaped  ornaments  on. 

Rabba  b.  Abuhu  lectured  the  same  in  Mehutza,  and  eighteen 
women  went  out  of  one  alley  wearing  those  ornaments. 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel  said:  "  A  belt  may  be 
worn."  Someone  said  a  leather  belt  (even  if  jewelled).  Said 
R.  Saphra:  "  Why!  Even  a  golden  belt  jewelled,  for  is  it  not 
equal  to  a  golden  garment  ?  "  Said  Rabhina  to  R.  Ashi :  "  How 
is  it  with  a  belt  worn  over  a  sash  ?  "  Answered  R.  Ashi :  "  By 
this  you  mean  two  belts"  (and  this  is  prohibited).  R.  Ashi, 
however,  said:  "  A  sash  may  be  worn  only  when  it  is  securely 
fastened,  but  not  otherwise." 

"  Nor  with  a  nose-ring.''  What  is  a  nose-ring  ?  It  is  a  nose- 
band. 

"  Nor  witJi  finger-rings,''  etc. ;  but  if  the  ring  have  a  seal  it 
is  prohibited,  as  it  is  not  an  ornament.  Is  this  not  contradicted 
from  Kelim,  XI.  8  ?  The  following  ornaments  of  women  are 
subject  to  defilement:  Chains,  nose-rings,  rings,  finger-rings 
either  with  or  without  a  seal,  and  nose-bands.  Said  R.  Na'hman 
b.  Itz'hak:  "You  quote  a  contradiction  in  the  laws  of  defile- 
ment as  against  the  laws  of  Sabbath.  As  for  defilement,  the 
Torah  requires  an  utensil  [Numbers,  xxxi.  20],  and  such  it 
is;  but  as  for  Sabbath,  it  refers  to  a  burden;  hence  a  ring 
without  a  seal  is  an  ornament,  with  a  seal  it  is  a  burden  (for 
women)." 

"  Nor  with  a  pin."  For  what  purpose  can  a  pin  be  used  ? 
R.  Ada  from  Narsha  explained  it  before  R.  Joseph  :  Women 
part  their  hair  with  it.  Of  what  use  is  it  on  Sabbath  ?  Said 
Rabha:  On  week  days  they  wear  a  golden  plate  on  their  heads; 
the  pin  is  used  for  parting  the  hair  and  holding  down  the  plate; 
but  on  Sabbath  the  pin  is  put  against  the  forehead. 

MISHNA  //. :  One  is  not  to  go  out  with  iron-riveted  sandals, 
nor  with  one  (iron-riveted  shoe)  unless  he  has  a  sore  on  his  foot, 
nor  with  phylacteries,  nor  yet  with  an  amulet  unless  made  by 
a  reliable  expert,   nor  with  a  shield,  helmet,  or  armor  for  the 

*  R.  Joseph  passed  through  a  severe  illness  and  at  times  forgot  his  own  teachings; 
hence  it  sometimes  occurred  that  he  was  reminded  of  them  by  his  disciples. 

f  Here  is  omitted  the  legend  about  Levi,  as  the  proper  place  for  it  is  in  Kethuboth, 
103/^,  and  it  will  be  translated  thtre. 


112  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

legs;  but  if  he  has  gone  out  (with  either  of  these)  he  is  not 
liable  for  a  sin-offering. 

GEMARA:  "  Iron-riveted  sandal.*'  What  is  the  reason  of 
its  being  prohibited  ?  Said  Samuel:  "  It  happened  toward  the 
close  of  the  persecutions  (of  the  Jews)  that  a  party  of  men  hid 
themselves  in  a  cave  with  the  understanding  that  after  once 
entering  no  one  was  to  go  out.  Suddenly  they  heard  a  voice 
on  the  outside  of  the  cave,  and  thinking  the  enemies  were  upon 
them,  they  began  crowding  each  other  into  the  farthest  recesses 
of  the  cave.  During  the  panic  that  ensued  more  men  were 
trampled  to  death  by  the  iron-riveted  sandals  worn  by  the  party 
than  the  enemies  would  have  killed.  At  that  time  it  was 
enacted  that  a  man  must  not  go  out  (on  Sabbath)  with  iron- 
riveted  sandals."  If  this  be  the  reason,  let  i^  also  be  prohibited 
on  week  days  ?  Because  it  occurred  on  a  Sabbath!  Then  let  it 
be  allowed  on  a  festival;  why  then  is  it  stated  that  on  a  festival 
it  must  not  be  sent  (Betzah,  26,  Mishna)  ?  And  furthermore, 
why  is  it  forbidden  on  Sabbath?  Because  the  people  usually 
assemble  on  that  day ;  and  the  same  is  the  case  with  a  festival. 
But  do  they  not  assemble  on  a  congregational  fast — why  then 
should  it  not  be  prohibited  also  then  ?  When  the  above-men- 
tioned happened  it  was  a  prohibited  assembly,  but  all  these 
assemblies  are  permitted.  And  even  according  to  R.  Hanina 
b.  Aqiba,  who  said  concerning  defilement  that  this  prohibition  is 
only  in  the  Jordan  in  a  boat,  as  the  case  happened,  it  is 
because  the  Jordan  is  different  in  width  and  depth  from  other 
rivers;  but  Sabbath  and  a  festival  are  alike  as  regards  labor. 

Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  This  (the  pro- 
hibition of  the  sandals  in  question)  is  only  with  regard  to  such 
as  are  riveted  for  the  sake  of  durability,  but  not  with  regard  to 
such  as  are  riveted  for  the  sake  of  decoration.  How  many 
(rivets  are  considered  to  be  for  the  latter  purpose)  ?  R.  Johanan 
said  five  in  each.  R.  Hanina  said  seven  in  each.  Said  R. 
Johanan  to  R.  Samon  b.  Aba:  "  I  will  explain  to  you  the  differ- 
ence between  my  opinion  and  that  of  R.  Hanina.  I  mean  two 
rivets  on  each  side  of  the  sandal  and  one  in  the  centre,  while  he 
means  three  on  each  side  and  one  in  the  centre.  The  Gemara 
declared  that  R.  Hanina  is  in  accordance  with  R.  Nathan,  who 
permits  seven;  and  R.  Johanan  is  in  accordance  with  R.  No- 
horai,  who  permits  only  five.  And  Aipha  said  to  Rabba  b.  b. 
Hana :  * '  Ye  who  are  the  disciples  of  R.  Johanan  may  act  accord- 
ing to  him ;    we,   however,   are  acting   in    accordance  with   R. 


TRACr    ^AliBATff.  113 

Hanina."  R.  Huna  questioned  R.  Ashi :  "  How  is  the  law  if 
tlierc  were  five  ?*'  And  he  said:  "  Even  seven  is  permitted." 
"  And  how  is  it  if  there  were  nine  ?  "  And  he  rejoined:  "  Even 
eight  is  prohibited.  A  certain  shoemaker  asked  of  R.  Ami: 
"  How  is  it  if  the  sandal  is  sewed  from  the  inside  ?"  He  an- 
swered: "  I  have  heard  that  it  is  permitted,  but  I  can  give  you 
no  reason."  Said  R.  Ashi:  "Does  master  not  know  the 
reason  ?  Being  sewed  from  the  inside,  it  is  no  longer  a  sandal 
but  a  shoe;  and  the  rabbis'  precaution  was  against  the  riveted 
sandal,  but  not  in  regard  to  shoes." 

Tiiere  is  a  Boraitha:  One  must  not  go  out  with  an  iron- 
riveted  sandal  and  shall  not  walk  in  them  from  one  room  to 
another,  not  even  from  one  bed  to  another  (in  the  same  room); 
but  it  may  be  handled  to  cover  vessels  with  or  to  support  one 
of  the  bed-stands  with.  R.  Elazar  b.  Simeon  prohibits  even 
this,  unless  the  majority  of  rivets  fell  out  and  but  four  or  five 
remain.  Rabbi  limits  the  permission  to  seven  (rivets).  If  the 
soles  are  made  of  leather  and  the  uppers  are  riveted,  it  is  per- 
mitted. If  the  rivets  are  made  like  hooks,  or  are  flat-headed, 
or  pointed,  or  pierce  through  the  sandal  to  protect  the  sole,  it 
is  permitted. 

R.  Massna,  others  say  R.  Ahadboy  b.  Massna  in  the  name 
of  R.  Massna,  said:  "  The  Halakha  does  not  prevail  in  accord- 
ance with  Elazar  b.  Simeon."  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  When 
one  individual  opinion  conflicts  with  a  majority,  the  opinion  of 
the  majority  prevails.  Lest  one  suppose  that,  because  R.  Elazar 
b.  Simeon  gave  a  reason  for  his  statement,  should  it  be  ac- 
cepted, he  comes  to  teach  us  that  it  is  not  so. 

Said  R.  Hyya:  "  Were  I  not  called  a  Babylonian,  who  per- 
mits what  is  prohibited,  I  would  permit  considerably  more. 
How  many?  In  Pumbeditha  they  say  twent}'-four,  and  in  Sura 
they  say  twenty-two."  Said  R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak:  "  It  seems 
by  your  remark  that  on  the  road  from  Pumbeditha  to  Sura  you 
lost  two." 

"  Nor  with  one,''  etc.  But  if  his  foot  is  sore  he  may  go  out. 
On  which  foot  may  he  wear  the  shoe  ?  On  the  foot  that  is  sore 
(for  protection). 

The  rabbis  taught:  When  one  puts  on  his  shoes  he  should 
commence  with  the  right  shoe;  when  he  takes  them  off  he 
should  commence  with  the  left.  When  one  bathes  he  should 
wash  the  right  side  first;  when  he  anoints  himself  he  should 
anoint  the  right  side  first,  and  whoever  anoints  the  whole  body 

VOL.   I. — 8 


114  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

should  commence  with  the  head,  for  the  head  is  the  king  of  all 
the  members  (of  the  body). 

"  Nor  with  phylacteries ;  "  but  if  he  went  out  with  them  on, 
he  is  not  liable  for  a  sin-offering.  Said  R.  Saphra:  This  is  not 
only  in  accordance  with  him  who  holds  Sabbath  is  a  day  for 
(wearing)  phylacteries,  but  it  is  even  in  accordance  with  him 
who  holds  that  it  is  not.  What  is  the  reason  ?  Because  phylac- 
teries are  put  on  in  the  same  manner  as  a  garment. 

"And  not  with  an  amulet,'"  etc.  Said  R.  Papa:  "  Do  not 
presume  that  both  the  maker  and  the  am.ulet  must  be  reliable; 
it  is  sufificient  if  the  maker  only  is  reliable."  So  it  seems  to  be 
from  the  statement  in  the  Mishna:  "  And  not  with  an  amulet 
that  was  not  made  by  a  reliable  expert."  It  does  not  say  with 
a  reliable  amulet. 

The  rabbis  taught:  Which  are  to  be  considered  such?  If 
they  have  cured  three  times,  no  matter  whether  they  contained 
inscriptions  (of  mystic  forms)  or  (certain)  medicaments.  If  the 
amulet  is  for  a  sickness,  be  it  serious  or  not,  or  if  it  is  for  one 
afflicted  with  epilepsy,  or  only  serves  as  a  preventive,  one 
may  fasten  or  unfasten  it  even  in  public  ground,  provided  he 
does  not  fasten  the  amulet  to  a  bracelet  or  a  finger-ring,  to  go 
out  with  it  in  public  ground,  lest  those  who  see  it  think  that  it 
is  being  worn  as  an  ornament.  Did  not  a  Boraitha  state  that 
only  such  amulets  as  cured  three  different  parties  are  reliable  ? 
This  presents  no  difficulty.  Here  we  are  taught  as  to  the  reli- 
ability of  the  expert  who  made  the  amulet,  while  in  the  latter 
Boraitha  we  are  taught  as  to  the  reliability  of  the  amulet  itself. 

Said  R.  Papa:  It  is  certain  to  me  that  where  three  different 
amulets  were  given  to  three  different  (human)  sufferers  at  three 
different  times  (and  a  cure  was  effected),  both  the  amulets  and 
the  expert  who  made  them  are  reliable.  Where  three  different 
amulets  were  given  to  three  different  sufferers  only  once,  the 
expert  is  rehable,  but  not  the  amulets.  Where  one  and  the 
same  amulet  was  given  to  three  different  sufferers,  the  amulet 
is  reliable,  but  not  the  expert;  but  how  is  it  with  three  different 
amulets  given  to  one  man  for  three  different  diseases  ?  Cer- 
tainly, the  amulets  are  not  reliable  (for  each  cured  only  once), 
but  how  is  it  with  the  expert  ?  Should  he  be  considered  reli- 
able or  not  ?  If  we  say  that  the  expert  cured  him,  perhaps  it 
was  only  the  fate  of  the  sufferer  that  he  should  be  cured  by 
a  script  ?     This  question  remains. 

The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question :  Is  there  any  sane- 


TRACT    SABBATH.  115 

tity  in  an  amulet  or  not  ?  For  what  purpose  are  we  to  know 
this  ?  In  order  to  enter  a  privy;  if  there  is  any  sanctity  in  the 
amulet  this  would  not  be  allowed,  otherwise  it  would. 

Come  and  hear.  We  have  learned  in  a  Mishna:  "  Not  with 
an  amulet  unless  made  by  a  reliable  expert."  From  this  we 
see  that  if  made  by  a  reliable  expert  one  may  go  out  with  it. 
Now,  if  we  say  that  there  is  sanctity  in  the  amulet,  how  can  we 
say  that  one  may  go  out  with  it  ?  Perhaps  he  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  enter  a  privy,  he  will  have  to  take  it  off,  and  thus  be 
forced  to  carry  it  four  ells  or  more  in  public  ground. 

MISHNA///.:  A  woman  shall  not  go  out  with  an  orna- 
mental needle  (with  a  hole  in),  nor  with  a  ring  that  has  a  seal, 
nor  with  a  Kulcar,  nor  with  a  Kabeleth,  nor  with  a  perfume 
bottle.  And  if  she  does,  she  is  liable  for  a  sin-offering.  Such 
is  the  opinion  of  R.  Meir.  The  sages,  however,  freed  her  in 
the  case  of  the  two  latter. 

GEMARA  :  Said  Ulla:  "  With  men  it  is  (concerning  a  finger- 
ring)  just  the  reverse."  That  is  to  say,  Ulla  is  of  the  opinion 
that  what  is  right  for  women  is  not  right  for  men,  and  what  is 
right  for  men  is  not  right  for  women.  Said  R.  Joseph:  "  Ulla  is 
of  the  opinion  that  women  form  a  class  of  their  own."  Rabha, 
however,  says  it  often  happens  that  a  man  gives  his  wife  a  ring 
with  a  seal  on,  to  put  away  in  a  box,  and  she  puts  it  on  her 
finger  until  she  comes  to  the  box ;  again,  it  happens  that  a  wife 
gives  her  husband  a  ring  without  a  seal  for  the  purpose  of  hav- 
ing him  give  it  to  a  jeweller  to  repair,  and  until  he  comes  to  the 
jeweller  he  puts  it  on  his  finger.  Thus  it  happens  that  a  woman 
may  wear  a  man's  ring  and  a  man  a  woman's  (temporarily). 

What  is  Kabeleth  ?  Cachous  (for  purifying  the  breath). 
The  rabbis  taught:  A  woman  must  not  go  out  with  Kabeleth, 
and  if  she  did  so  she  is  liable  for  a  sin-offering.  This  is  the 
opinion  of  R.  IMeir,  but  the  sages  say  she  should  not  go  out 
with  it,  yet  if  she  does  she  is  not  liable.  R.  Eliezer,  however, 
says  she  may  go  out  with  it  to  commence  with.  Wherein  do 
they  differ  ?  R.  Meir  holds  that  it  is  a  burden,  the  sages  that 
it  is  an  ornament ;  and  the  reason  that  she  should  not  go  out 
with  it  is  lest  she  take  it  off  to  show  to  her  friends,  and  thus  per- 
chance carry  it  in  her  hand.  R.  Eliezer,  however,  permits  it  to  be 
carried  to  commence  with,  because,  said  he,  who  generally  carry 
such  ?  Women  whose  breath  emits  a  bad  odor,  and  surely  they 
will  not  take  them  off  to  show  them,  hence  there  is  no  apprehen- 
sion that  they  will  carry  them  four  ells  or  more  on  public  ground. 


ii6  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

There  is  a  Boraitha:  "  A  woman  must  not  go  out  with  a  key 
in  her  hand,  nor  with  a  box  of  cachous,  nor  with  a  perfume 
bottle;  and  if  she  goes  out  with  them,  she  is  hable  for  a  sin- 
offering."  So  is  the  decree  of  R.  Meir,  but  R.  Eliezer  freed 
her,  provided  the  box  contams  cachous,  and  the  bottle  perfume; 
but  if  they  are  empty,  she  is  liable  (for  then  there  is  a  burden). 
Said  R.  Ada  b.  Ahaba:  "  From  this  we  may  infer  that  one 
carrying  less  than  the  prescribed  quantity  of  food  in  a  vessel  on 
public  ground  is  culpable,  as  it  states  if  there  was  no  cachou  or 
perfume,  which  is  equal  to  a  vessel  containing  less  than  the  pre- 
scribed amount  of  food,  she  is  liable.  Hence  it  makes  her  liable 
even  if  less  than  the  prescribed  quantity.  Said  R.  Ashi :  Gen- 
erally one  may  be  freed,  but  here  it  is  different ;  the  box  and 
the  bottle  themselves  arc  considered  a  burden. 

We  read  in  the  Scripture  [Amos,  vi.  6] :  "  And  anoint  them- 
selves with  the  costliest  of  ointments."  Said  R.  Jehudah  in 
the  name  of  Samuel:  "  This  signifies  perfumery." 

R.  Joseph  objected:  "  R.  Jehudah  b.  Baba  said  that  after 
the  destruction  of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  the  sages  prohibited 
even  the  use  of  perfumes,  but  the  rabbis  did  not  concur  in  the 
decree.  If  we  say  perfume  used  only  for  pleasure,  v/hy  did  not 
the  rabbis  concur  ? ' '  Abayi  answered  :  According  to  your  mode 
of  reasoning,  even  drinking  wine  from  bowls  (bocals)  is  prohib- 
ited, for  it  is  written  further  [ibid.,  ibid.]:  "Those  that  drink 
wine  from  bowls."  R.  Ami  said,  that  certainly  means  bocals, 
but  R.  Assi  claimed  that  it  means  they  clinked  glasses  one  with 
another.  Still  Rabba  b.  R.  Huna  once  happened  to  be  at  the 
house  of  the  Exilarch  and  drank  wine  out  of  a  bocal,  but  was 
not  rebuked.  It  is,  therefore,  thus  to  be  understood :  The 
rabbis  restricted  only  such  pleasures  as  were  combined  with 
rejoicing,  but  not  pleasures  unaccompanied  with  rejoicing. 

Said  R.  Abuhu :  Others  say  we  were  taught  in  a  Boraitha: 
"Three  things  bring  man  to  poverty:  Urinating  in  front  of 
one's  bed  when  naked;  carelessness  in  washing  one's  hands; 
and  permitting  one's  wife  to  curse  him  in  his  presence."  Said 
Rabha:  "  Urinating  in  front  of  one's  bed  should  be  understood 
to  signify '  turning  around  so  as  to  face  the  bed  and  then  urinat- 
ing,' but  not  turning  in  the  opposite  direction;  and  even  when 
facing  the  bed  it  signifies  only  '  urinating  on  X\\c  floor  in  front  of 
the  bed  and  not  in  a  urinal.'  "  Carelessness  in  washing  one's 
hand  signifies  "  not  washing  one's  hands  at  all,"  but  not  insuflfi- 
cient  washing,  for   R.   Hisda  said:  "  I  washed  my  hands  well 


TRACT    SADBA'lII.  117 

and  plentifully  and  am  plentifully  rewarded,"  Permitting  one's 
wife  to  curse  him  in  his  presence  implies  "  for  not  bringing  her 
jewelry,"  and  then  only  when  one  is  able  to  do  so  but  does  not. 

Rahava  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehudah:  The  trees  of  Jeru- 
salem were  cinnamon  trees,  and  when  used  for  fuel  the  odor 
extended  over  all  the  land  of  Israel;  ever  since  the  destruction 
of  the  second  Temple  the  cinnamon  trees  disappeared ;  but  a 
morsel  as  big  as  a  barleycorn  is  still  to  be  found  in  the  treasury 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Zimzimai. 

MISHNA  IV.  :  One  must  not  go  out  with  a  sword,  nor  with 
a  bow,  nor  with  a  triangular  shield,  nor  with  a  round  one,  nor 
with  a  spear;  if  he  does  so  he  is  liable  for  a  sin-offering.  R. 
Eliezer  says  they  are  ornaments  to  him,  but  the  sages  say  they 
are  nothing  but  a  stigma,  for  it  is  written  [Isaiah,  ii.  4]  :  "  They 
shall  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares  and  their  spears  into 
pruning-knives;  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation, 
neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more."  Knee-buckles  are 
clean  and  one  may  go  out  with  them  on  the  Sabbath.  Stride 
chains  are  subject  to  defilement,  and  one  must  not  go  out  with 
them  on  the  Sabbath. 

GEMARA:  "  R.  Eliczcr  says  they  are  orfiaincnts."  There 
is  a  Boraitha:  The  sages  said  unto  R.  Eliezer:  If  the  weapons 
are  ornaments  to  man,  why  will  they  cease  to  exist  in  the  post- 
messianic  period  ?  He  answered:  "  They  will  exist  then  also." 
This  is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  Samuel,  who  said 
there  will  be  no  difference  between  the  present  time  and  the 
post-messianic  period  save  the  obedience  to  temporal  poten- 
tates, for  it  is  written  [Deut.  xv.  11]:  "  For  the  needy  will  not 
cease  out  of  the  land." 

Said  Abayi,  according  to  others  R.  Joseph,  to  R.  Dimi  or  to 
R.  Ivia,  and  according  to  still  others,  Abayi  said  directly  to  R. 
Joseph:  What  is  the  reason  of  R.  Eliczer's  theory  regarding 
weapons?  It  is  written  [Psalms,  xlv.  4]:  "Gird  thy  sword 
upon  thy  thighs,  O  Most  Mighty,  with  thy  glory  and  thy 
majesty." 

Said  R.  Kahana  to  Mar,  the  son  of  R.  Huna:  Is  not  this 
passage  applied  to  the  study  of  the  Law  (Torah)  ?  And  he 
answered:  "Anything  maybe  inferred  from  a  passage;  at  the 
same  time,  the  passage  must  not  be  deprived  of  its  common 
sense."  Said  R.  Kahana:  "  I  am  fourscore  years  old  and  have 
studied  the  six  sections  of  the  Mishna  with  their  explanations 
through,  and  did  not  know  until  now  that  a  scriptural  passage 


ii8  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

has  first  to  be  interpreted  in  its  plainest  form!"  What  infor- 
mation does  he  mean  to  convey  to  us  by  this  assertion  ?  That 
man  has  to  study  the  Law  through  first,  and  then  reason 
upon  it. 

R.  Jeremiah  in  the  name  of  R.  Elazar  said:  Two  scholars 
who  debate  in  the  Law  (not  for  controversy's  sake),  the  Holy 
One,  blessed  be  He,  causes  them  to  prosper;  moreover,  they 
become  exalted,  for  it  is  written  [Psalms,  xlv.  5],  "  be  prosper- 
ous." But  lest  one  say  that  this  would  be  the  case  even  if  they 
(debate),  not  for  the  purpose  (of  studying  the  Law),  therefore  it 
says  further  [ibid.,  ibid.],  "because  of  truth."  Again,  one 
might  say  that  the  same  would  be  the  case  even  if  one  became 
arrogant  and  conceited.  Therefore  it  says  further  [ibid.,  ibid.], 
"and  meekness  and  righteousness."  And  if  they  act  humbly 
they  will  be  rewarded  with  (the  knowledge  of)  the  Law,  which 
was  given  with  the  right  hand  (of  God),  as  it  is  further  written 
[ibid.],  "  and  thy  right  hand  shall  teach  thee  fearful  things." 

R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak  says  they  will  be  rewarded  with  the 
knowledge  of  what  is  said  of  the  right  hand  of  the  Law,  for 
Rabha  b.  R.  Shila,  according  to  others  R.  Joseph  b.  Hama  in 
the  name  of  R.  Shesheth,  said:  How  is  to  be  explained  the 
passage  [Proverbs,  iii.  16]:  "Length  of  days  is  in  her  right 
hand;  and  in  her  left  riches  and  honor"  ?  Shall  one  say  that 
in  the  right  hand  is  only  length  of  days,  but  not  riches  and 
honor  ?  Common  sense  does  not  dictate  so ;  therefore  it  must 
be  interpreted  thus  :  For  those  who  study  the  Torah  in  the  right 
way  there  is  long  life,  and  so  much  the  more  riches  and  honor; 
but  for  those  who  study  it  7iot  in  the  right  way,  riches  and  honor 
there  may  be,  but  not  long  life. 

Said  R.  Jeremiah  in  the  name  of  R.  Simeon  b,  Lakish :  Two 
scholars  who  quietly  discourse  on  the  Torah  among  themselves, 
the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  hearkens  unto  them  and  listens 
to  their  desires,  for  it  is  written  [Malachi,  iii.  16]:  "  Then  con- 
versed they  that  fear  the  Lord  one  with  the  other,"  etc.  Con- 
versed means  conversed  quietly,  as  it  is  written  [in  Psalms, 
xlvii.  4]:  "  He  will  subdue  (quiet)  people  under  us."  (Subdue 
and  converse  are  expressed  by  the  same  terms  in  the  two  pas- 
sages, hence  the  similitude.*)  What  is  meant  by  the  words 
"  that  thought  upon  His  name  "  ?     vSaid  R.  Ami:  "  Even  when 

*  The  words  convfrsai  and  subdue  in  the  two  passages  are  expressed  in  Hebrew 
by  *'  Nidberu"  and  "  Yadber."  Both  are  derived  from  the  root  Dibur  =  to  speak 
quietly. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  119 

one  intended  to  observe  a  commandment,  but  was  accidentally 
prevented  and  could  not  accomplish  it,  it  is  credited  to  him  as 
if  he  had  actually  observed  it."  Thus  the  passage  "thought 
upon  His  name  "  is  interpreted. 

Said  R.  Hanina  b.  Ide:  Whosoever  observes  a  command- 
ment as  prescribed,  will  not  be  the  recipient  of  bad  tidings,  for 
it  is  written  [Eccl.  viii.  5]  :  "  Wlioso  keepeth  the  commandment 
will  experience  no  evil  thing."  R.  Assi,  others  say  R.  Hanina, 
said:  "  Even  if  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  has  so  decreed  it 
(that  he  shall  experience  evil  things)  the  decree  is  annulled 
through  the  prayers  of  this  man,  as  it  is  written  [ibid.  4] :  "  Be- 
cause the  word  of  a  king  is  powerful,  and  who  may  say  unto 
him,  what  doest  thou  ? '  and  this  immediately  followed  by  the 
passage :  '  Whoso  keepeth  the  commandment  will  experience  no 
evil  thing.'  " 

R.  Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish  said :  Two 
scholars  who  mutually  instruct  themselves  in  the  Law,  the  Holy 
One,  blessed  be  He,  hearkens  to  their  voices,  for  it  is  written 
[Song  of  Solomon,  viii.  13]:  "Thou  that  dwellest  in  the  gar- 
dens, the  companions  listen  for  thy  voice;  oh,  let  me  hear  it  "  ; 
but  if  they  do  not  do  so,  they  cause  the  Shekhina  to  move  away 
from  Israel,  for  further  it  is  written  [ibid.  14]  :  "  Flee  away,  my 
beloved,"  etc. 

The  same  in  the  name  of  the  same  authority  said :  The 
Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  loves  two  scholars  who  combine  to 
study  the  Law,  for  it  is  written  [Solomon's  Song,  ii.  4]:  "  And 
his  banner  over  me  was  love."  Said  Rabha:  Provided  they 
know  something  of  Law,  but  have  no  instructor  to  teach  them 
at  the  place  where  they  reside." 

The  same  said  again:  "  The  man  who  lends  his  money  is 
more  deserving  than  the  charitable  man,  and  the  most  deserving 
of  all  is  he  who  gives  charity  surreptitiously  or  invests  money  in 
partnership  (with  the  poor)."  Furthermore  he  said:  "  If  thy 
teacher  is  jealous  (for  thy  welfare)  and  as  spiteful  as  a  serpent 
(if  thou  neglect  thy  studies),  carry  him  on  thy  shoulders  (because 
from  him  thou  wilt  learn),  and  if  an  ignoramus  plays  the  pious, 
do  not  live  in  his  neighborhood." 

R.  Kahana,  according  to  others  R.  Assi,  and  according  to 
still  others  R.  Abba  in  the  name  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish,  said: 
"  Whoso  raises  a  vicious  dog  in  his  house  prevents  charity  to 
proceed  therefrom  (for  the  poor  arc  afraid  to  go  inV  as  it  is  writ- 
ten [Job,  vi.  14]:  "  As  though  I  were  one  who  refuseth  kind* 


I20  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

ness  to  a  friend."  ("As  though /were  one  who  refuseth  "  is 
expressed  in  Hebrew  by  one  word,  viz.,  lamos;  in  Greek  Xa/uoS 
means  dog,*  and  hence  R.  Simeon's  inference.)  Said  R.  Na'h- 
man :  "  He  even  forsaketh  the  fear  of  the  Lord,"  for  it  is  writ- 
ten at  the  end  of  the  verse  [ibid.,  ibid.]:  "And  forsaketh  the 
fear  of  the  Lord." 

Once  a  woman  went  into  a  certain  house  to  bake,  and  a  dog, 
through  barking  at  her,  caused  her  to  have  a  miscarriage.  Said 
the  landlord  of  the  house  "  Fear  him  not,  I  have  deprived  him 
of  his  teeth  and  claws";  but  the  woman  answered:  "Throw 
thy  favors  to  the  dogs,  the  child  is  already  gone!  " 

Said  R.  Huna:  It  is  written  [Eccl.  xi.  9]:  "  Rejoice,  oh 
young  man,  in  thy  childhood,  and  let  thy  heart  cheer  thee  in 
the  days  of  thy  youthful  vigor,  and  walk  firmly  in  the  ways  of 
thy  heart  and  in  the  direction  in  which  thy  eyes  see;  but  know 
thou  that  concerning  all  these  things  God  will  bring  thee  into 
judgment."  (Does  not  this  passage  contradict  itself?  Nay.) 
Up  to  the  words  "  and  know  "  are  words  of  the  misleader,  and 
from  there  on  are  words  of  the  good  leader.  Resh  Lakish  said 
up  to  "  (and)  know  "  the  theoretical  part  of  the  law  is  meant, 
and  from  there  on  it  speaks  of  good  acts. 

"  Knee-biicklcs  are  clean, '^  etc.  Said  R.  Jehudah:  This  (birith) 
means  arm-bandages.  To  this  R.  Joseph  objected:  "  We  have 
learned  that  a  birith  is  (virtually)  clean,  and  one  may  go  out 
with  it  on  the  Sabbath.  If  it  is  an  arm-band,  how  can  that  be  ? 
The  latter  is  subject  to  defilement."  It  means  that  the  birith 
is  worn  on  the  same  part  of  the  leg  as  the  arm-bandage  on  the 
arm. 

Rabbin  and  R.  Huna  sat  before  R.  Jeremiah,  who  slum- 
bered, and  Rabbin  said :  "  A  birith  is  worn  on  one  of  the  thighs 
and  kebalim  on  both  shins.  "  But  R.  Huna  said  both  are  worn 
on  both  shins,  but  the  chain  attached  to  the  birith  on  both 
shins  is  called  kebalim,  and  the  chain  makes  them  a  perfect 
vessel.  At  this  point  of  the  argument  R.  Jeremiah  awoke  and 
said:  "I  thank  you.  Even  so  I  heard  R.  Johanan  say." 
When  R.  Dimi  came  to  Neherdai,  he  sent  to  tell  the  sages: 
My  former  information  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  that  the 
Tzitz  was  a  woven  thing  was  an  error,  as  so  was  said  in  his 
name.  Whence  the  adduction  that  any  ornament  is  subject  to 
becoming  defiled  ?     From  the  Tzitz,   the  golden  plate  on  the 

*R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish  was  a  Palestinian  and  knew  the  Greek  language. 


TRACT    SABBATH. 


121 


forehead  of  the  Higli  Priest.  And  whence  the  adduction  that 
textile  fabrics  arc  also  subject  to  becoming  defiled  ?  From  the 
passage  [Lev.  xi.  32],  "  or"  raiment,  which  includes  any  textile 
fabrics  whatsoever. 

The  rabbis  taught:  "  Any  piece  of  textile  fabric  or  any  trifle 
of  an  ornament  is  subject  to  defilement."  But  how  is  it  with 
an  article  which  is  half  texture  and  half  ornament  ?  It  is  also 
subject  to  defilement.  As  for  an  ornament  which  is  carried  in 
a  bag,  the  bag  being  of  woven  material  becomes  defiled  and 
with  it  the  ornament,  but  if  the  ornament  was  carried  in  a  piece 
of  cloth,  the  cloth  remains  undefiled.  Is  a  piece  of  cloth  not 
a  textile  fabric  ?  Yea,  but  by  that  is  meant  that  the  bag, 
even  if  not  made  of  textile  fabric,  becomes  defiled,  because  it  is 
attached  to  the  garment.  What  is  a  bag  used  for  ?  Said  R. 
Johanan:  Poor  people  use  them  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
some  trifles  in  them  and  then  hang  them  on  the  necks  of  their 
daughters. 

It  is  written  "  And  Moses  was  wroth  with  the  officers  of 
the  host  "  [Numb.  xxxi.  14].  Said  R.  Na'hman  in  the  name  of 
Rabba  b.  Abuhu:  "  Thus  said  Moses  unto  Israel:  '  Have  ye 
then  returned  to  your  first  sin  (that  ye  have  let  the  females 
live)?*"  They  answ^ered  him  [ibid.  49]:  "  Thy  servants  have 
taken  the  sum  of  the  men  of  war  who  have  been  under  our  com- 
mand, and  there  lacketh  not  one  man  of  us"  (implying  that 
none  had  sinned).  Said  Moses  again:  "  If  such  be  the  case, 
why  need  ye  atonement?"  They  answered:  "Though  we 
have  strengthened  ourselves  to  keep  aloof  from  sin,  we  could 
not  put  it  out  of  our  minds.  We  have  therefore  [ibid.  50] 
brought  an  oblation  unto  the  Lord."  On  this  the  school  of 
R.  Ishmael  taught:  Why  did  the  Israelites  of  that  generation 
require  forgiveness  ?  Because  they  had  feasted  their  eyes  on 
strange  women. 

MISHNA  V.  :  A  woman  may  go  out  with  plaits  of  hair,  be 
they  made  of  her  own  hair  or  of  another  woman  or  of  an  ani- 
mal; with  Totaphoth  or  Sarbitin  if  fastened.*  With  a  hood  or 
with  a  wig  in  her  yard  (private  ground);  with  cotton  wadding 
in  her  ear  or  in  her  shoe;  or  with  cotton  wadding  prepared  for 
her  menstruation ;  with  a  grain  of  pepper  or  of  salt,  or  with 
whatever  else  she  may  be  accustomed  to  keep  in  her  mouth, 
provided  she  does  not  put  it  in  her  mouth  on  the  Sabbath  to 

*  Sec  note  to  preceding  Mishna. 


122  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

commence  witR ;  if  it  fell  out  of  her  mouth  she  must  not  replace 
it.  As  for  a  metal  or  golden  tooth,  Rabbi  permits  a  woman  to 
go  out  with  it,  but  the  sages  prohibit  it. 

GEMARA:  It  has  been  taught:  "  Provided  a  young  woman 
does  not  go  out  with  (plaits  of  hair  belonging  to)  an  old  woman ; 
nor  an  old  woman  with  plaits  of  hair  belonging  to  a  young 
woman."  So  far  as  an  old  woman  is  concerned,  it  would  be 
nothing  but  right,  for  the  plaits  of  a  young  woman  would  be 
a  source  of  pride  to  her  (and  there  is  fear  of  her  taking  them  off 
to  show  to  others);  but  why  should  a  young  woman  be  prohib- 
ited to  go  out  with  plaits  belonging  to  an  old  woman  ?  They 
are  a  disgrace  to  her  (and  surely  she  would  not  take  them  off 
for  exhibition) !  The  teacher  while  treating  on  plaits  with 
respect  to  an  old  woman  also  makes  mention  of  the  case  of 
a  young  woman  (for  the  sake  of  antithesis). 

"  With  a  hood  or  a  wig  in  her  yard.''  Said  Rabh:  "  Every- 
thing prohibited  by  the  sages  to  be  worn  on  public  ground  must 
not  be  worn  in  the  yard,  save  a  hood  and  a  wig."  R.  Anani  b. 
Sasson  in  the  name  of  R.  Ishmael  said:  "  Everything  may  be 
worn  in  the  yard  like  a  hood.  But  why  does  Rabh  discriminate 
in  favor  of  these  objects?"  Said  Ulla:  "In  order  that  she 
may  not  become  repulsive  to  her  husband." 

"And  with  cotton  in  her  ears  or  m  her  shoes.''  Romi  b. 
Ezekiel  taught  only  when  tied  to  her  ears  or  her  shoes. 

"  And  cotton  waddiyig  prepared  for  her  menstmation."  "In 
this  case,"  said  Rabha,  "  even  if  it  is  not  tied  it  may  be  worn, 
because,  being  disgusting,  it  will  not  be  handled."  R.  Jere- 
miah b.  R.  Abba  questioned  Rabha:  "  How  is  it  if  the  same  was 
prepared  with  a  handle  ?  "  And  he  answered :  "  Then  it  is  also 
allowed."  And  so  also  it  was  taught  by  R.  Na'hman  b.  Oshia 
in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan. 

R.  Johanan  went  to  the  college  with  cotton  wadding  in  his 
ears  on  Sabbath,  and  his  colleagues  objected  to  it.  R.  Joni 
went  into  unclaimed  ground  with  it  against  the  opinion  of  all 
his  contemporaries. 

With  a  grain  of  pepper  or  a  grain  of  salt."  The  former  to 
take  away  any  bad  odor  of  the  breath  and  the  latter  as  a  remedy 
for  toothache. 

'  *  Or  ivith  whatever  else  she  is  accustomed  to  keep  in  her  mouthy ' ' 
meaning  ginger  or  cinnamon. 

"A  metal  or  a  gilt  tooth,"  etc.  Said  R.  Zera:  They  differ 
concerning  a  gold  tooth  only,  for  a  silver  tooth  is  unanimously 


TRACT    SADBATII.  uj 

permitted.  And  so  we  have  learned  plainly  in  a  Boraitha.  Said 
Abayi :  Rabbi,  R.  Eliezcr,  and  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar,  all  three 
agree  to  the  opinion  that  anything  provoking  disgust  (or  ridi- 
cule) a  woman  will  not  wear  for  show:  Rabbi,  as  just  cited; 
R.  Eliezcr,  as  he  freed  a  woman  bearing  a  box  of  cachous  or 
a  perfume  bottle;  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar,  as  we  have  learned  in 
the  following  Boraitha:  "  Anything  below  the  hair-net  is  per- 
mitted to  be  worn  outside." 

IMISHNA  V/.  :  Women  may  go  out  with  a  coin  fastened  to 
a  swelling  on  their  feet ;  little  girls  may  go  out  with  laces  on 
and  even  with  screws  in  their  ears.  Arabians  may  go  out  in 
their  long  veils  and  Medians  in  their  mantillas;  so  may  even 
all  women  go  out,  but  the  sages  spoke  of  existing  customs. 
She  may  fold  her  mantilla  around  a  stone,  nut,  or  a  coin 
(used  as  buttons),  provided  she  does  it  not  especially  on  the 
Sabbath. 

GEMARA :  ' '  Little  girls  may  go  out  with  laces. ' '  The  father 
of  Samuel  did  not  permit  his  daughters  to  go  out  with  laces  nor 
to  sleep  together;  he  made  bathing-places  for  them  during  the 
month  of  Nissan,  and  curtains  during  the  month  of  Tishri. 
He  did  not  permit  them  to  go  out  with  laces  ?"  Were  we 
not  taught  that  girls  may  go  out  with  laces  ?  The  daughters  of 
Samuel's  father  wore  colored  (fancy)  laces  and  (lest  they  take 
them  off  to  show  to  others)  he  did  not  permit  them  to  go  out 
with  them. 

'^'  Fold  her  mayitilla  around  a  stone,''  etc.  But  did  not  the 
first  part  (of  the  Mishna)  say  that  she  may  fold  it,  etc.?  Said 
Abayi,  the  last  part  of  the  Mishna  has  reference  to  a  coin  (which 
is  not  permitted).  Abayi  questioned :  May  a  woman  fold  her 
mantilla  on  Sabbath  shrewdly  around  a  nut  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  it  to  her  little  son  ?  And  this  question  is  according  to 
both;  to  him  who  permits  subtilty  in  case  of  fire,  and  also 
according  to  him  who  forbids  it.  According  to  him  who  per- 
mits it,  it  may  be  that  only  in  case  of  fire  he  permits,  as  if  it 
were  not  allowed,  he  would  extinguish  it;  but  this  is  not  the 
case  here.  And  according  to  him  who  prohibits  it,  it  may  be 
that  he  does  so  because  the  clothing  seller  usually  so  bears  the 
clothes;  but  here,  as  it  is  not  the  custom  to  bear  it  so,  it  may 
be  that  it  is  permitted  ?     The  question  remains. 

MTSHNA  VII.  :  The  cripple  may  go  out  with  his  wooden 
leg;  such  is  the  decree  of  R.  Meir,  but  R.  Jossi  prohibits  it. 
If  the  wooden  leg  has  a  receptacle  for  pads,  it  is  subject  to 


i:4  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

defilement.  Crutches  are  subject  to  defilement  by  being  sat  or 
trodden  upon  ;*  but  one  may  go  out  with  them  on  Sabbath  and 
enter  the  outer  court  (of  the  Temple).  The  chair  and  crutches 
of  a  paralytic  are  subject  to  defilement,  and  one  must  not  go 
out  with  them  on  the  Sabbath  nor  enter  the  outer  court  (of  the 
Temple).  Stilts  are  not  subject  to  defilement,  but  nevertheless 
one  must  not  go  out  with  them  on  Sabbath, 

GEMARA:  Rabha  said  to  R.  Na'hman:  How  are  we  to 
accept  the  teaching  of  the  Mishna  ?  Did  R.  Meir  permit  the 
cripple  to  go  out  with  a  wooden  leg  on  the  Sabbath  and  R.  Jossi 
prohibit  his  doing  so,  or  vice  versa?  Answered  R.  Na'hman: 
"  I  know  not."  "  And  how  shall  the  Halakha  prevail  ? "  An- 
swered R.  Na'hman  again:  "I  know  not."  It  was  taught: 
Samuel  and  also  R.  Huna  begin  the  Mishna:  "  A  cripple  shall 
not,"  etc.  And  R.  Joseph  said:  "As  both  sages  read  the 
Mishna  so,  we  shall  do  the  same."  Rabha  b.  Shira,  however, 
opposed:  "  Was  he  not  aware  that  when  R.  Hanon  b.  Rabha 
taught  so  to  Hyya,  the  son  of  Rabh,  the  father  showed  him 
with  the  movement  of  his  hands  to  change  the  names  ?  In 
reality  Samuel  himself  has  also  receded  from  the  former  teaching, 
and  has  corrected:  "  A  cripple  may  go  out,"  so  is  the  decree  of 
R.  Meir.     [Hamoth,  loia.'] 

"  Arid  must  not  enter  the  outer  court,''  etc.  A  Tana  taught 
before  R.  Johanan  that  one  may  go  in  with  them  in  the  outer 
court.  Said  R.  Johanan  to  him :  I  teach  that  a  woman  may 
perform  the  "  Chalitza  "  f  with  them  (hence  they  are  consid- 
ered shoes),  and  you  say  he  may  go  in  with  them  to  the  outer 
court.     Go  and  teach  the  contrary. 

MISHNA  VIII.:  Boys  may  go  out  with  bands  and  princes 
with  golden  belts;  so  may  every  one  else,  but  the  sages  adduce 
their  instances  from  existing  customs, 

GEMARA:  What  kinds  of  bands?  Said  Ada  Mari  in  the 
name  of  R.  Na'hman  b.  Baruch,  who  said  in  the  name  of  R. 
Ashi  b.  Abhin,  quoting  R.  Jehudah:  "  Wreaths  of  Puah  roots." 
Said  Abayi:  "  My  mother  told  me  that  three  of  such  wreaths 
give  relief  (in  sickness),  five  of  them  produce  a  complete  cure, 
and  seven  of  them  are  even  proof  against  witchcraft." 

Said  R.  Alia  b.  Jacob:  "  And  this  only  if  they  (the  wreaths) 

*  Wherever  the  expression  "  subject  to  defilement  bj'  being  sat  or  trodden  upon  " 
occurs  in  the  Talmud  it  refers  to  being  sat  or  trodden  upon  by  a  person  afflicted  with 
venereal  diseases. 

\  See  the  law  of  Chalitza  [Deut.  xxv.  9]. 


TRACr    SABBATH.  125 

have  never  seen  sun,  moon,  or  rain;  never  heard  a  hammer  fall 
or  a  cock  crow  or  the  fall  of  footsteps." 

Said  R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak:  "  Thy  bread  is  cast  upon  the 
deep  "  (meaning  the  remedy  is  an  impossibility).* 

The  rabbis  taught:  (Women)  may  go  out  with  a  Kutana 
stone  (to  prevent  miscarriage)  on  the  Sabbath.  It  was  said  in 
the  name  of  R.  Meir  that  they  may  even  go  out  with  the  coun- 
terpoise of  a  Kutana  stone,  and  not  only  such  (women)  as  have 
already  once  miscarried,  but  even  as  a  preventive  to  miscar- 
riage, and  not  only  when  a  woman  is  pregnant,  but  lest  she 
become  pregnant  and  miscarr}'.  Said  R.  Jemar  b.  Shalmia  in 
the  name  of  Abayi:  But  the  counterpoise  must  be  an  exact  one 
and  made  in  one  piece. 

MISHNA  IX. :  It  is  permitted  to  go  out  with  eggs  of  grass- 
hoppers or  with  the  tooth  of  a  fox  or  a  nail  from  the  gal- 
lows where  a  man  was  hanged,  as  medical  remedies.  Such 
is  the  decision  of  R.  Meir,  but  the  sages  prohibit  the  using 
of  these  things  even  on  week  days,  for  fear  of  imitating  the 
Amorites.f 

GEMARA:  The  eggs  of  grasshoppers  as  a  remedy  for  tooth- 
ache; the  tooth  of  a  fox  as  a  remedy  for  sleep,  viz.,  the  tooth  of 
a  live  fox  to  prevent  sleep  and  of  a  dead  one  to  cause  sleep ;  the 
nail  from  the  gallows  where  a  man  was  hanged  as  a  remedy  for 
swelling. 

''As  medical  remedies,''  such  is  the  decision  of  R.  Meir. 
Abayi  and  Rabha  both  said:  "  Anything  (intended)  for  a  medi- 
cal remedy,  there  is  no  apprehension  of  imitating  the  Amorites; 
hence,  if  not  intended  as  a  remedy  there  is  apprehension  of  imi- 
tating the  Amorites  ?  But  were  we  not  taught  that  a  tree  which 
throws  off  its  fruit,  it  is  permitted  to  paint  it  and  lay  stones 
around  it  ?  It  is  right  only  to  lay  stones  around  it  in  order  to 
weaken  its  strength,  but  what  remedy  is  painting  it  ?  Is  it  not 
imitating  the  Amorites  ?  (Nay)  it  is  only  that  people  may  see 
it  and  pray  for  mercy.  We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  It  is 
written  [Leviticus,  xiii.  45]:  "  Unclean,  unclean,  shall  he  call 
out."  (To  what  purpose  ?)  That  one  must  make  his  troubles 
known  to  his  fcllow-mcn,  that  they  may  pray  for  his  relief. 

Rabhina  said:  The  hanging  up  of  a  cluster  of  dates  on  a  date 

*  The  text  continues  with  different  quack  remedies  for  sickness,  melancholy,  and 
other  things  which  are  neither  important  nor  translatable,  and  therefore  omitted. 

f  See  Leviticus,  xviii.  3  and  30,  where  the  imitating  of  the  customs  of  the 
Canaanites  and  Amorites  is  forbidden. 


126  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

tree  (as  a  sign  that  the  tree  throws  off  its  fruit)  is  in  accordance 
with  the  above-mentioned  teacher. 

If  one  says:  "  Kill  this  cock,  for  he  crowed  at  night;  or  kill 
this  hen,  for  she  crowed  like  a  cock ;  or  I  will  drink  and  leave 
a  little  over,"  because  of  superstition,  there  is  apprehension 
that  he  imitate  theAmorites;  but  one  may  put  a  splinter  of 
"  Tuth  "  *  or  a  piece  of  glass  in  a  pot,  that  it  may  boil  the 
quicker.  The  sages,  however,  prohibited  pieces  of  glass  as 
being  dangerous.  The  rabbis  taught:  One  may  throw  a  hand- 
ful of  salt  in  a  lamp  that  it  may  burn  the  brighter,  or  loam  and 
fragments  of  earthenware  that  it  may  burn  more  slowly.  The 
saying  "  to  your  health  "  at  wine-drinking  is  no  imitation  of  the 
customs  of  the  Amorites.  It  happened  that  R.  Aqiba  gave 
a  banquet  in  honor  of  his  son,  and  at  every  cup  that  he  drank 
he  said:  "  To  the  wine  in  the  mouth  and  to  the  health  of  the 
sages  and  their  disciples." 

*  Zilla,  according  to  the  commentary  of  Malkhi  Zedek,  which  means  *'a  smooth 
shrubby  herb,  of  the  mustard  family." 


CHAPTER   VII. 

THE    GENERAL    RULE    CONCERNING     THE    PRINCIPAL    ACTS    OF    LABOR 

ON    SABBATH. 

MISHNA/. :  A  general  rule  was  laid  down  respecting  the 
Sabbath.  One  who  has  entirely  forgotten  the  principle  of 
(keeping)  the  Sabbath  and  performed  many  kinds  of  work  on 
many  Sabbath  days,  is  liable  to  bring  but  07ie  sin-offering.  He, 
however,  who  was  aware  of  the  principle  of  Sabbath,  but  (for- 
getting the  day)  committed  many  acts  of  labor  on  Sabbath  days, 
is  liable  to  bring  a  separate  sin-offering  for  each  and  every  Sab- 
bath day  (which  he  has  violated).  One  who  knew  that  it  was 
Sabbath  and  performed  many  kinds  of  work  on  different  Sab- 
bath days  (not  knowing  that  such  work  was  prohibited),  is  liable 
to  bring  a  separate  sin-offering  for  every  principal  act  of  labor 
committed.  One  who  committed  many  acts  all  emanating  from 
one  principal  act  is  liable  for  but  one  sin-offering. 

GEMARA:  What  is  the  reason  that  the  Mishna  uses  the 
expression  "  a  general  rule  "  ?  Shall  we  assume  that  it  means 
to  teach  us  a  subordinate  rule  in  the  succeeding  Mishna,  and 
the  same  is  the  case  with  the  Mishna  concerning  the  Sabbatical 
year,  where  at  first  a  general  rule  is  taught  and  the  subsequent 
Mishnas  teach  a  subordinate  rule  ?  Why  does  the  IMishna 
relating  to  tithes  teach  one  rule  and  the  succeeding  Mishna 
another,  but  does  not  call  the  first  rule  a  "  general  rule  "  ?  Said 
R.  Jose  b.  Abbin:  Sabbath  and  the  Sabbatical  years,  in  both  of 
which  there  are  principals  and  derivatives,  he  expresses  a  gen- 
eral rule;  tithes,  however,  in  which  there  are  no  principals  and 
derivatives,  no  general  rule  was  laid  down.  But  did  not  Bar 
Kapara  teach  us  a  general  rule  also  in  tithes  ?  It  must  be  there- 
fore explained  thus:  The  subject  of  Sabbath  is  greater  than 
Sabbatical,  as  the  first  applies  to  attached  and  detached  things, 
while  the  Sabbatical  applies  only  to  attached  ones.  The  sub- 
ject of  the  latter,  however,  is  greater  than  tithes,  as  it  applies 
to  human  and  cattle  food;  while  tithes  applies  only  to  human 
food.     And  Bar  Kapara  teaches  a  general  rule  in  tithes  also. 


128  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

because  it  is  greater  than  peah  (corner  tithe),  as  tne  former  ap- 
plies also  to  figs  and  herbs,  which  is  not  the  case  with  peah. 

It  was  taught  concerning  the  statement  of  the  Mishna:  He 
who  forgot,  etc.,  that  Rabh  and  Samuel  both  said:  Even  a 
child  that  was  captured  by  idolaters  or  a  proselyte  who  remained 
among  idolaters  is  regarded  as  one  who  was  aware  of  the  princi- 
ple, but  forgot  it  and  is  liable;  and  both  R.  Johanan  and  Resh 
Lakish  said  that  the  liability  falls  only  upon  him  who  was  aware, 
but  subseqtietitly  forgot ;  the  child  and  the  proselyte  in  question 
are  considered  as  if  they  were  never  aware,  and  are  free. 

An  objection  was  raised  from  the  following:  A  general  rule 
was  laid  down  concerning  the  observation  of  the  Sabbath.  One 
who  had  entirely  forgotten  the  principle  of  Sabbath,  and  had 
performed  many  kinds  of  work  on  many  Sabbath  days,  is  liable 
for  but  07ie  sin-offering.  How  so  ?  A  child  which  was  captured 
by  idolaters  and  a  proselyte  remaining  with  idolaters,  who  had 
performed  many  acts  of  labor  on  different  Sabbaths,  are  liable 
for  but  one  sin-offering;  and  also  for  the  blood  or  (prohibited) 
fats  which  he  has  consumed  during  the  whole  time,  and  even 
for  worshipping  idols  during  the  whole  time,  he  is  liable  for  only 
one  sin-offering.  Munbaz,  however,  frees  them  entirely.  And 
thus  did  he  discuss  before  R.  Aqiba:  Since  the  intentional 
transgressor  and  the  unintentional  are  both  called  sinners,  I 
may  say:  As  an  intentional  one  cannot  be  called  so  unless  he 
was  aware  that  it  is  a  sin,  the  same  is  the  case  with  an  uninten- 
tional, who  cannot  be  called  sinner  unless  he  was  at  some  time 
aware  that  this  is  a  sin  (it  is  true,  then,  the  above  must  be  con- 
sidered as  never  having  been  aware  of  it).  Said  R.  Aqiba  to 
him:  "  I  will  make  an  amendment  to  your  decree,  as  the  inten- 
tional transgressor  cannot  be  considered  as  such  unless  he  is 
cognizant  of  his  guilt  at  the  time  of  action,  so  also  should  not 
the  unintentional  transgressor  be  considered  as  such  unless  he 
is  cognizant  at  the  time  of  action.''  Answered  Munbaz:  "  So  it 
is,  and  the  more  so  after  your  amendment."  Thereupon  R. 
Aqiba  replied:  "According  to  your  reasoning,  one  could  not 
be  called  an  unintentional  transgressor,  but  an  intentional." 
Hence  it  is  plainly  stated:  "  How  so  ?  A  child,"  etc.  This  is 
only  in  accordance  with  Rabh  and  Samuel,  and  it  contradicts 
R.  Johanan  and  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish.  They  may  say:  "  Is 
there  not  a  Tana  Munbaz,  who  freed  them  ?  We  hold  with 
him  and  with  his  reason,  namely:  It  is  written  [Numb.  xv.  29]: 
"  A  law  shall  be  for   you,  for  him  that    acteth  through  igno- 


TRACT    SABBATH.  129 

ranee,"  and  the  next  verse  says  [ibid.  30],  "  but  the  person  that 
docth  aught  with  a  high  hand."  The  verse  compares  then  the 
ignorant  to  him  who  has  acted  intentionally;  and  as  the  latter 
cannot  be  guilty  unless  he  was  aware  of  his  sin,  the  same  is  the 
case  with  the  ignorant,  who  cannot  be  considered  guilty  unless 
he  was  at  some  time  aware  of  the  sin. 

Another  objection  was  raised  from  a  Mishna  farther  on: 
Forty  less  one  are  the  principal  acts  of  labor."  And  deliber- 
ating for  what  purpose  the  number  is  taught,  said  R.  Johanan: 
For  that,  if  one  performed  them  all  through  forgetfulness,  he  is 
liable  for  each  of  them.  How  is  such  a  thing  (as  ulter  forget- 
fulness) to  be  imagined  ?  We  must  assume  that  although  cog- 
nizant of  the  (day  being)  Sabbath,  one  forgot  which  acts  of 
labor  (were  prohibited).  And  this  is  correct  only  in  accordance 
with  R.  Johanan,  who  holds:  "  If  one  is  ignorant  of  what  acts 
of  labor  constitute  (sin  punishable  with)  Karath  (being  '  cut 
off '),  and  commits  one  of  those  acts  even  intentionally,  he  is 
bound  to  bring  a  sin-offering  only."  And  such  an  instance  can 
be  found  in  case  one  knows  that  those  acts  of  labor  were  pro- 
hibited, at  the  same  time  being  ignorant  of  that  punishment 
w'hich  is  Karath.  But  according  to  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish,  who 
holds  that  one  must  be  totally  ignorant  of  both  the  punishment 
of  Karath  and  what  acts  are  prohibited  on  Sabbath,  how  can 
the  above  case  be  found  ?  He  was  aware  that  Sabbath  must  be 
kept.  But  what  was  he  aware  of  in  the  observance  of  Sabbath  ? 
He  only  knew  of  the  law  governing  the  going  outside  of  the 
boundaries  of  the  city. 

But  who  is  the  Tana  of  the  following  Boraitha  ?  The  scrip- 
tural passage,  "  Him  that  acteth  through  ignorance,"  refers  to 
one  who  was  ignorant  both  of  the  (principle  of)  Sabbath  and  the 
prohibition  of  the  acts  of  labor.  One  who  was  cognizant  of 
both  is  referred  to  by  the  Scriptures  as  "  the  person  that  doeth 
aught  with  a  high  hand."  If  one,  however,  was  cognizant  of 
the  (principle  of)  Sabbath,  but  not  of  the  prohibition  of  the  acts 
of  labor,  or  vice  versa,  or  even  if  he  knew  that  the  acts  of  labor 
were  prohibited,  but  did  not  know  that  they  involved  culpa- 
bility requiring  a  sin-offering  (while  he  is  not  the  scriptural  man 
"  that  acteth  through  ignorance  "),  still  he  is  culpable  of  a  trans- 
gression requiring  a  sin-offering  ?    It  is  Munbaz  mentioned  above. 

R.  Huna  said:  One  who  has  been  travelling  in  a  desert  and 
does  not  know  what  day  is  Sabbath,  must  count  six  days  from 
the  day  (on  which  he  realizes)  that  he  has  missed  the  Sabbath, 

VOL.    I. — g 


13©  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

and  observe  the  seventh.  Hyya  b.  Rabh  said:  He  must  observe 
that  very  day  and  then  continue  his  counting  from  that  day. 
And  what  is  the  point  of  their  differing  ?  The  former  holds 
that  one  must  act  in  accordance  with  the  creation  (which  com- 
menced six  days  before  the  Sabbath),  while  the  latter  holds  that 
one  must  be  guided  by  Adam's  creation  (on  the  eve  of  Sabbath). 
An  objection  was  made:  "  If  a  man  while  travelling  in  a  desert 
forgot  when  the  Sabbath  arrives,  he  must  count  *  one  day  to 
six  *  and  then  observe  the  seventh.  Does  this  not  mean  he  must 
count  six  days  and  then  observe  the  seventh  ?"  Nay;  it  may 
be  said  that  it  means  that  very  day,  and  continue  his  counting 
from  that  day.  If  this  be  the  case,  why  are  we  taught  "  he 
must  count  one  to  six  "  ?  It  should  be  taught  (plainly)  he  must 
observe  a  day  and  continue  counting  from  that  day.  Moreover, 
we  were  taught  in  a  Boraitha:  "  If  one  while  travelling  in  the 
desert  forgot  when  the  Sabbath  arrives,  he  must  count  six  days 
and  observe  the  seventh."  The  objection  to  R.  Hyya  b.  Rabh 
is  sustained. 

Rabha  said  (referring  to  the  traveller  who  forgot  the  Sab- 
bath): "  On  everyday,  except  the  one  on  which  he  realizes  that 
he  has  missed  the  Sabbath,  he  may  perform  enough  labor  to 
sustain  himself."  But  one  that  should  do  nothing  and  die  (of 
hunger)  ?  Nay;  only  in  case  he  provided  himself  with  his  neces- 
saries on  the  preceding  day.  Perhaps  the  preceding  day  was 
Sabbath.  Therefore  read:  He  may  labor  even  on  that  day  to 
sustain  himself.  In  what  respects  is  that  day,  then,  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  other  days  ?  By  means  of  Kiddush  and  Habh- 
dalah.* 

Said  Rabha  again:  "  If  he  only  recollects  the  number  of 
days  he  has  been  travelling,  he  may  labor  all  day  on  the  eighth 
day  of  his  journey,  in  any  event  "  (for  he  surely  did  not  start 
on  his  journey  on  a  Sabbath).  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  Lest 
one  say  that  one  would  not  only  not  start  out  on  the  Sabbath, 
but  also  not  on  the  day  before  Sabbath ;  hence,  if  he  went  out 
on  the  fifth  day  of  the  week,  he  is  permitted  to  work  on  both 
the  eighth  and  ninth  days  of  his  journey.  Therefore  he  comes 
to  teach  us  that  only  on  the  eighth  day  of  his  journey  would  he 
be  permitted  to  work,  for  frequently  one  comes  upon  a  caravan 
on  Friday  and  starts  out  even  on  that  day. 

*  Kiddush  and  Ilabhdalah  are  the  benedictions  recited  at  the  commencement  and 
termination  of  the  Sabbath,  the  former  over  wine  or  bread  and  the  latter  only  over 
some  beverage. 


TRACT   SABBATH. 


»3> 


"  One  who  has  entirely  forgotten ,"  etc.  Whence  is  this  de- 
duced ?  Said  R.  Na'hman  in  the  name  of  Rabba  b.  Abuhu: 
"  There  are  two  verses  in  the  Scripture,  viz.  [Exod.  xxxi.  i6]: 
'  And  the  children  of  Israel  shall  keep  the  Sabbath,'  and  [Lev. 
xix.  3]:  '  And  my  Sabbaths  shall  ye  keep.'  How  is  this  to  be 
explained  ? "  The  first  means  the  observance  of  the  command- 
ment of  Sabbath  generally,  and  the  second  means  one  observ- 
ance of  the  commandment  for  each  Sabbath. 

One  ivho  kneiv  {the  pri?iciple  of)  Sabbath."  What  is  the 
reason  of  a  difference  between  the  former  and  the  latter  part  of 
the  Mishna  ?  Said  R.  Na'hman:  For  what  transgression  does 
the  Scripture  make  one  liable  for  a  sin-offering  ?  For  what  is 
done  through  ignorance  ?  In  the  former  part  of  the  Mishna 
the  case  of  one  who  was  not  aware  that  it  was  Sabbath  is  dealt 
with,  and  hence  only  one  sin-offering  is  imposed,  while  in  the 
latter  the  case  dealt  with  is  of  one  who  was  aware  that  it  was 
Sabbath,  but  ignorant  as  to  the  acts  of  labor,  hence  a  sin-offer- 
ing for  each  act  is  prescribed. 

"  Liable  for  a  sin-offering,"  etc.  Whence  do  we  deduce  the 
distinction  between  acts  of  labor?  Said  Samuel:  It  is  written 
[Exod.  xxxi.  14]:  "  Every  one  that  defileth  it  shall  be  surely 
put  to  death."  We  see,  then,  that  the  Scripture  has  provided 
many  deaths*  for  defiling  the  Sabbath.  But  does  not  the  verse 
refer  to  one  who  violates  the  Sabbath  wantonly  ?  As  it  cannot 
be  applied  to  an  intentional  violator,  for  it  is  already  written 
[Exod.  XXXV.  2]:  Whosoever  doeth  work  thereon  shall  be  put  to 
death";  therefore  apply  it  to  an  unintentional  sinner.  How, 
then,  will  you  explain  the  words  "  put  to  death"  ?  That  is 
only  the  pecuniary  equivalent  (of  being  put  to  death)  (viz.,  he 
shall  bring  a  sin-offering  which  costs  money).  Why  not  advance 
the  distinction  between  the  acts  of  labor,  as  R.  Nathan  (does 
elsewhere)  ?  Samuel  is  not  of  the  opinion  of  R.  Nathan,  but  of 
R.  Jossi,  who  says  that  the  additional  commandment  not  to 
kindle  a  fire  on  the  Sabbath  was  taught  additionally  for  the 
special  purpose  of  conveying  to  us  that  one  who  does  kindle 
a  fire  is  not  to  be  punished  either  with  Karath  or  stoning;  for 
we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  The  additional  commandment 
not  to  kindle  a  fire  on  the  Sabbath  was  taught  additionally  for 
the  special  purpose  of  conveying  to  us  that  one  who  kindles 
a  fire  on  the  Sabbath  is  not  to  be  punished  either  with  Karath 

*  The  literal  translation  of  the  passape  Exod.  xxxi.  14  is  :  "  Ever)-  one  that  de- 
fileth it  [the  Sabbath],  death  shall  he  die." 


132  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

or  stoning.  Such  is  the  opinion  of  R.  Jossi.  R.  Nathan  says 
it  is  written  for  the  sake  of  separation  (from  other  acts).  Let 
then  the  separation  of  acts  of  labor  be  adduced  whence  R.  Jossi 
adduces  them — in  the  following  Boraitha:  It  is  written  [Lev. 
iv.  2]:  "  And  do  (of)  any  (one)  of  them,"  as  follows:  Sometimes 
one  is  only  bound  to  bring  one  sin-ofTering  for  all  transgressions, 
and  sometimes  one  is  bound  to  bring  a  sin-offering  for  each  and 
every  transgression  separately. 

Said  R.  Jossi  b.  Hanina:  "  Why  does  R.  Jossi  explain  that 
passage  thus  ?  The  verse  should  read  '  one  of  them  '  (Achath 
mehenoh),  but  in  reality  it  reads  '  of  one  of  them  '  (Meachath 
mehenoh),  or  it  should  read  '  of  one  them  '  (Meachath  henoh), 
but  it  reads  '  of  one  of  them.'  Therefore  he  explains  that 
'  sometimes  one  is  equal  to  many  and  sometimes  many  equal 
one.       * 

Rabha  questioned  R.  Na'hman:  "  How  is  it  if  one  is  igno- 
rant of  both  (of  the  day  being  Sabbath  and  the  prohibition  of 
the  acts  of  labor  on  that  day)  ?  Answered  R.  Na'hman:  "  Take 
one  instance  at  a  time.  You  say  he  was  ignorant  of  the  day 
being  Sabbath;  then  he  is  bound  to  bring  a  sin-offering.  How 
would  it  be  if,  on  the  contrary,  I  had  said  that  he  was  ignorant 
of  the  prohibition  of  the  acts  of  labor  ^rsl  /  Would  you  say 
that  he  becomes  liable  to  a  sin-offering  for  each  and  every  act 
performed?"  Said  R.  Ashi:  "Let  us  see  from  the  man's 
actions.  How  would  it  be  if  one  came  to  him  and  reminded 
him  of  its  being  Sabbath  (without  calling  his  attention  to  the 
fact  that  he  was  working)  ?  If  the  man  immediately  stopped  his 
work,  it  is  clear  that  he  had  actually  forgotten  that  it  was  Sab- 
bath. If,  however,  the  man  was  reminded  by  a  third  party  that 
he  was  working  (without  having  his  attention  called  to  the  fact 
that  it  was  Sabbath),  and  he  immediately  quit  his  work,  it  is 
evident  that  he  was  not  cognizant  of  the  prohibition  of  the  acts 
of  labor;  hence  he  would  become  liable  to  bring  a  sin-offering 
for  each  and  every  act  performed.  Said  Rabbina  to  R.  Ashi: 
"  What  difference  does  it  make  ?  If  one  is  reminded  that  it  is 
Sabbath  and  he  quits  work,  he  becomes  aware  that  it  is  Sab- 
bath, and  if  he  is  reminded  of  his  working  he  also  becomes 
aware  that  the  day  is  Sabbath;  hence  it  makes  no  difference." 

Rabha  said  (supposing  the  following  case  happened:  "  One 
reaped  and  ground  the  equivalent  (in  size)  of  a  fig  on  a  Sabbath, 

*  In  that  passage  there  is  a  superfluous  Mem  (the  Hebrew  prefix  meaning  of  ox 
front).     Hence  its  literal  translation  is  "of  one  of  them." 


TRACT   SABBATH  133 

without  knowing  that  it  was  Sabbath,  and  on  another  Sabbath 
did  the  same  thing,  knowing  it  was  Sabbath,  but  not  knowing 
that  such  acts  of  labor  were  prohibited ;  then  remembered  that 
he  had  committed  a  transgression  on  the  Sabbath  through  igno- 
rance of  the  day  being  Sabbath,  and  took  a  sheep  and  set  it  aside 
for  a  sin-offering.  Suddenly  he  recollected  that  he  had  also 
committed  a  transgression  on  the  other  Sabbath,  through  his 
ignorance  of  the  prohibition  of  the  acts  of  labor.  What  would 
the  law  be  in  such  a  case  ?  I  can  say  that  the  sheep  set  aside 
for  a  sin-offering  for  the  first  transgression  suffices  also  for  the 
second,  although  in  reality  two  sin-offerings  were  required  to 
atone  for  the  second  transgression.  The  one  sin-offering  would 
suffice,  because  it  is  in  truth  not  brought  for  forgetting  the  Sab- 
bath, but  for  reaping  and  grinding;  the  reaping  in  the  first 
instance  carries  with  it  the  reaping  in  the  second,  as  also  the 
grinding  in  the  first  instance  carries  with  it  the  grinding  in  the 
second,  and  one  sin-offering  atones  for  all. 

Assuming,  however,  that  in  the  second  instance  (when  he 
forgot  about  the  prohibition  of  the  acts  of  labor)  he  (at  some 
latei:  time)  recollected  only  having  reaped  (but  forgot  that  he 
also  ground),  and  having  set  aside  the  sin-offering  he  became 
liable  for  on  account  of  his  transgression  in  the  first  instance 
(when  he  forgot  about  the  Sabbath),  he  atones  for  the  reaping 
and  grinding  on  the  first  Sabbath  and  for  the  reaping  on  the 
second  Sabbath,  but  not  for  the  grinding  on  the  second  Sab- 
bath; hence  (after  also  recollecting  that  he  had  ground)  he  must 
bring  an  additional  sin-offering.  Abayi,  however,  says:  The 
one  sin-offering  atones  for  all,  because  the  grinding,  which  he 
atones  for  in  the  first  instance,  also  carries  with  it  the  grinding 
in  the  second  instance.  Why  so  ?  For  the  reason  that  in  both 
instances  the  acts  atoned  for  are  analogous.  (When  a  sin-offer- 
ing was  brought,  a  confession  was  made.  In  citing  the  sin  com- 
mitted in  the  first  instance  grinding  was  mentioned  and  applies 
also  to  the  grinding  in  the  second  instance.  Therefore  no  addi- 
tional sin-offering  is  necessary.) 

It  was  taught:  If  one  has  eaten  tallow  (which  is  prohibited) 
on  two  different  occasions,  and  at  both  times  the  tallow  was  the 
equivalent  (in  size)  of  an  olive  (or  larger) ;  and  after^vard  he  was 
reminded  of  the  first  occason,  and  later  on  of  the  second  occa- 
sion also,  what  is  the  law  in  his  case  ?  R.  Johanan  says:  He 
must  bring  two  sin-offerings.  Why  so  ?  Because  he  recol- 
lected   the   transgressions   at    different    times.       Resh    Lakish, 


134  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

however,  says:  He  need  bring  only  one  sin-offering.  What  is 
R.  Johanan's  reason  ?  Because  it  is  written  [Lev.  iv.  28]: 
"  For  his  sin,  which  he  hath  committed,"  and  he  adduces  there- 
from that  for  every  sin  committed  one  must  bring  a  separate 
sin-offering,  and  Resh  Lakish  holds  according  to  the  passage 
[ibid.  26],  "  Concerning  his  sin,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him," 
and  claims  that  it  being  one  and  the  same  sin,  only  one  sin- 
offering  is  sufficient.  But  what  will  Resh  Lakish  do  with  the 
verse,  "  For  his  sin  which  he  hath  committed"  ?  That  refers 
to  the  sin-offering  which  had  already  been  brought,  and  there- 
fore could  not  apply  to  a  later  sin.  And  what  about  R.  Johanan 
and  the  passage,  "  Concerning  his  sin,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  "  ? 
R.  Johanan  explains  this  as  follows:  If  a  man  ate  tallow  equiva- 
lent (in  size)  to  an  olive  and  a  half,  and  later  ate  another  piece 
the  size  of  half  an  olive.  Afterward  he  recollected  having  eaten 
tallow,  but  thought  that  it  was  the  size  of  one  olive,  might 
some  not  say  that  the  remaining  piece  eaten  in  the  first  instance 
should  be  added  to  the  piece  eaten  in  the  second  instance,  and 
thus  constitute  another  piece  the  equivalent  (in  size)  to  an  olive, 
and  make  him  liable  for  another  sin-offering  ?  Therefore  the 
passage  which  means:  After  once  having  obtained  forgiveness 
for  the  transgression  on  the  first  occasion  the  second  cannot  be 
counted  in  with  the  first. 

It  was  taught:  If  one  intended  to  pick  up  a  thing  detached 
(for  instance,  a  knife  that  had  fallen  in  a  row  of  vegetables),  and 
while  doing  so  (accidentally)  cut  off  one  of  the  growing  vege- 
tables, he  is  free.*  If,  however,  he  intended  to  cut  something 
lying  on  (but  not  attached  to)  the  ground,  and  instead  cut  off 
something  growing  out    of   (attached    to)  the   ground,    Rabha 

*  In  the  Tract  Kriroth  the  reason  of  the  man's  non-culpability  is  explained  as  fol- 
lows :  It  is  written  [Lev.  iv.  23],  "  If  now  his  sin  wherein  he  has  sinned  come  to  his 
knowledge,"  and  this  should  be  supplemented  with  "  but  not  the  sin  which  he  had  not 
in  mind  to  commit  at  all."  Whence  we  see  plainly  that  the  Scriptures  designate  as  an 
unintentional  sinner  only  one  who  knows  wherein  he  has  sinned;  for  instance,  if  he 
became  aware  that  it  was  Sabbath,  or  that  the  acts  performed  by  him  were  prohibited. 
In  our  case,  however,  where  a  man  intended  to  pick  up  a  thing  but  accidentally  cut 
a  thing,  it  is  evident  that  no  intention  to  cut  existed  in  the  man's  mind,  and  the  intent 
of  the  ^''wherein  he  has  sinned"  in  the  Scriptures  does  not  apply  to  him.  Rabha 
goes  further  and  says  that  even  if  one  actually  accomplished  an  act  he  had  in  mind 
and  which  was  permissible  on  the  Sabbath,  but  at  the  same  time  accidentally  com- 
mitted a  prohibited  act  (as  illustrated  in  the  above  instance),  even  in  such  a  case  the 
scriptural  "  wherein  he  has  sinned  "  cannot  apply,  nor  can  he  be  accounted  the 
scriptural  unintentional  sinner  who  is  liable  for  a  sin-oflering.  Abayi,  however,  differs 
with  him,  as  will  be  seen  farther  on. 


TRACT    SABBATH. 


135 


declares  him  free,  because  no  intention  to  cut  off  the  growing 
object  existed  in  the  mind  of  the  man;  but  Abayi  declares  him 
culpable  for  the  reason  that,  while  the  man  did  not  intend  to 
cut  off  what  he  really  did,  still  the  intention  to  cut  was  preva- 
lent in  the  man's  mind,  and  he  really  did  cut;  hence  he  is  what 
the  Scriptures  refer  to  as  "  one  who  acteth  unintentionally." 

It  was  also  taught:  One  who  intended  to  throw  (from  private 
ground  into  public)  only  for  a  distance  of  two  ells,  but  threw 
four,  is  freed  by  Rabha,  for  the  reason  that  the  original  inten- 
tion was  to  throw  within  a  permissible  distance  (throwing  for 
a  distance  of  two  ells  only  was  permitted) ;  but  Abayi  held  him 
culpable,  for  the  reason  that  the  act  originally  intended  was 
accomplished.  If  one  threw  in  public  ground  mistaking  it  for 
private,  Rabh  holds  him  free  (for  the  same  reason  as  before), 
and  Abayi  holds  him  culpable  (also  for  the  same  reason  as  he 
gave  in  the  previous  case).  Both  instances  though  analogous 
are  necessary.  In  the  first  instance  (of  cutting),  where  Rabh 
holds  the  offender  not  culpable,  the  intention  to  cut  off  what 
was  prohibited  did  not  exist,  but  in  the  second  instance  (throw- 
ing four  ells),  it  could  not  be  accomplished  without  (carrying 
out  the  intention  of)  throwing  for  two  ells,  and  passing  the  two 
ells  (the  object  landing  at  a  distance  of  four).  Now,  lest  one 
might  say  that  Rabha  coincides  with  the  opinion  of  Abayi,  and 
from  the  latter  instance  it  might  be  assumed  that  the  offender 
intended  to  throw  two,  but  threw  four  ells,  hence  Rabha  holds 
him  not  culpable,  for  the  intention  to  throw  four  ells  did  not 
exist;  but  if  one  threw  four  ells  in  what  he  thought  was  private 
ground,  and  which  turned  out  to  be  public  ground,  the  inten- 
tion was  carried  out,  for  the  object  thrown  reached  its  desired 
destination,  and  therefore  lest  one  say  that  in  this  case  Rabha 
coincides  with  Abayi,  the  two  instances  are  illustrated,  and  we 
are  informed  that  not  even  in  this  case  does  Rabha  agree  with 
Abayi. 

MISHNA  //. :  The  principal  acts  of  labor  (prohibited  on  the 
Sabbath)  are  forty  less  one — viz. :  Sowing,  ploughing,  reaping, 
binding  into  sheaves,  threshing,  winnowing,  fruit-cleaning,  grind- 
ing, sifting,  kneading,  baking,  wool-shearing,  bleaching,  comb- 
ing, dyeing,  spinning,  warping,  making  two  spindle-trees,  weav- 
ing two  threads,  separating  two  threads  (in  the  warp),  tying 
a  knot,  untying  a  knot,  sewing  on  with  two  stitches,  tearing  in 
order  to  sew  together  with  two  stitches,  hunting  deer,  slaugh- 
tering the  same,   skinning  them,   salting  them,   preparing  the 


136  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

hide,  scraping  the  hair  off,  cutting  it,  writing  two  (single)  letters 
(characters),  erasing  in  order  to  write  two  letters,  building, 
demolishing  (in  order  to  rebuild),  kindling,  extinguishing  (fire), 
hammering,  transferring  from  one  place  into  another.  These 
are  the  principal  acts  of  labor — forty  less  one. 

GEMARA:  For  what  purpose  is  the  number  (so  distinctly) 
given  ?  (They  are  enumerated.)  Said  R.  Johanan:  If  one 
labored  through  total  ignorance  of  the  (laws  governing  the) 
Sabbath,  he  must  bring  a  sin-offering  for  every  act  of  labor 
performed. 

''  Sowing, ploughing.''  Let  us  see:  Ploughing  being  always 
done  before  sowing,  let  it  be  taught  first.  The  Tana  (who 
taught  as  in  the  Mishna)  is  a  Palestinian,  and  in  his  country 
they  sow  first  and  then  plough.  Some  one  taught  that  sowing, 
pruning,  planting,  transplanting,  and  grafting  are  all  one  and  the 
same  kind  of  labor.  What  would  he  inform  us  thereby  ?  That 
if  one  performs  many  acts  of  labor,  all  of  the  same  class,  he  is 
liable  for  but  one  sin-offering. 

Said  R.  Aha  in  the  name  of  R.  Hyya  b.  Ashi,  quoting 
R.  Ami:  "  One  who  prunes  is  guilty  of  planting,  and  one  who 
plants,  transplants,  or  grafts  is  guilty  of  sowing."  Of  sowing 
and  not  of  planting  ?     I  mean  to  say  of  sowing  also. 

Said  R.  Kahana:  One  who  prunes  and  uses  the  branches  for 
fuel  is  liable  for  two  sin-offerings,  one  for  reaping  and  one  for 
planting.  Said  R.  Joseph:  One  who  mows  alfalfa  (hay)  is  guilty 
of  mowing  and  planting  both.  Said  Abayi:  One  who  mows 
clover  hay  (which  sheds  its  seed  when  mowed)  is  liable  (for  a  sin- 
offering)  for  mowing  and  sowing. 

"  Ploughing.''  There  is  a  Boraitha:  Ploughing,  digging,  fur- 
rowing, are  one  and  the  same  kind  of  labor.  R.  Shesheth  said: 
One  who  removes  a  knoll  of  earth  in  a  house  becomes  liable  for 
building,  and  if  in  a  field  he  is  liable  for  ploughing.  Rabha 
said:  Filling  up  a  hole  in  the  house  makes  one  liable  for  build- 
ing, and  in  the  field  for  ploughing.  R.  Aba  said:  Digging  (the 
same  hole)  on  Sabbath  for  the  purpose  of  making  use  of  the 
earth  alone  is  free  even  according  to  R.  Jehudah,  who  said  that 
the  performance  of  an  unnecessary  act  of  labor  makes  one  cul- 
pable. He  refers  to  labor  that  improves  an  object  and  not  to 
that  which  spoils  it. 

"  Mowing^  There  is  a  Boraitha:  Reaping,  vintaging, 
selecting  dates,  olives,  and  figs  are  all  one  and  the  same  kind 
of  labor. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  137 

^*  Binding  into  sheaves.''  Rabha  said:  One  who  gathers  salt 
from  salt  works  is  guilty  of  the  act  of  binding  into  sheaves. 
Abayi,  however,  said  that  binding  into  sheaves  applies  only  to 
produce  of  the  soil. 

Threshing.*'  There  is  a  Boraitha:  Threshing,  carding,  and 
hackling  belong  to  one  and  the  same  class  of  labor. 

Threshing,  wijtnowing,  fruit-cleaning,"  etc.  Is  not  win- 
nowing, fruit-cleaning,  and  sifting  one  and  the  same  class  of 
labor?  Abayi  and  Rabha  both  said:  "  Acts  of  labor  executed 
during  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle  are  enumerated  sepa- 
rately, though  they  arc  of  an  analogous  nature."  Let  pound- 
ing then  also  be  enumerated  (as  labor,  inasmuch  as  the  spices  for 
incense  had  to  be  pounded).  Said  Abayi:  (It  is  true!  This 
is  also  one  of  the  acts  of  labor  performed  at  the  construction  of 
the  tabernacle.)  But  as  the  poor  people  do  not  pound  their 
grain,  generally  using  it  in  its  natural  state,  it  is  not  included  in 
the  principal  acts  of  labor.  Rabha,  however,  said:  "  The 
Mishna  should  be  understood  in  the  sense  Rabbi  expounded  it: 
The  principal  acts  of  labor  are  forty  less  one.  Should  pounding 
be  included,  there  would  be  forty  even."  Let  then  one  of  the 
principal  acts  (enumerated  in  the  Mishna)  be  stricken  out  and 
substituted  by  pounding.  Hence  it  is  best  to  accept  Abayi's 
reason. 

The  rabbis  taught:  If  there  are  several  kinds  of  food  before 
a  man  on  the  Sabbath,  he  may  select  such  as  he  desires  and 
even  set  it  aside,  but  he  must  not  separate  the  good  from  the 
spoilt.  If  he  does  this,  he  is  liable  for  a  sin-offering.  How  is 
this  to  be  understood  ?  R.  Hamnuna  explained  it  thus:  "  One 
may  select  the  good  from  the  spoilt  for  immediate  or  later  con- 
sumption, but  he  must  not  pick  out  the  spoilt,  leaving  the  good 
for  later  consumption.  If  he  does  this,  he  is  liable."  Abayi 
opposed:  "  Is  there  anything  mentioned  (in  the  Mishna)  about 
separating  the  good  from  the  spoilt  ?"  He  therefore  explained 
the  Boraitha  as  follows:  "  Food  may  be  selected  for  immcdiat^e 
consumption  and  setting  aside,  but  not  for  later  consumption. 
If  this  is  done,  it  is  considered  the  same  as  storing  it,  and  in- 
volves the  liability."  This  was  reported  to  Rabha  by  the 
rabbis,  and  he  said:  Na'hmcni  (Abayi)  has  explained  it  correctly. 

When  two  kinds  of  food  were  before  a  man  and  he  selected 
part  of  one  kind  and  ate  it,  then  selected  part  of  the  other  kind 
and  set  it  aside,  R.  Ashi  learned  in  the  Boraitha  that  the  man 
is  free,  but  R.  Jeremiah  of  Diphti   learned  that  he  is  culpable. 


138  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Is  there  not  a  Boraitha  which  teaches  that  he  is  ?  This  presents 
no  difficulty.  R.  Ashi  refers  to  food  served  in  a  basket  or 
a  bowl,  but  R.  Jeremiah  learned  that  the  man  sifted  the  food  in 
a  sieve. 

When  R.  Dimi  came  to  Babylon  he  related:  It  happened  on 
a  Sabbath,  when  R.  Bibhi's  turn  came  to  entertain  the  disciples, 
that  R.  Ami  and  R.  Assi  arrived.  R.  Bibhi  placed  before  them 
a  basket  filled  with  fruit  (together  with  the  leaves  and  sprigs), 
and  I  am  not  aware  what  his  reason  was.  Was  he  of  the  opin- 
ion that  it  is  forbidden  to  separate  food  from  trash,  or  was  it 
his  liberality  ? 

Hyzkiyah  said:  "  One  who  shells  pressed  lupines  (on  the 
Sabbath)  is  culpable."  Does  this  mean  to  say  that  it  is  forbid- 
den to  separate  food  from  trash  ?  Nay;  there  is  quite  a  difTer- 
ence  where  pressed  lupines  are  concerned ;  they  must  be  scalded 
just  seven  times  and  immediately  shelled,  for  if  they  are  not 
immediately  shelled  they  become  putrid;  therefore  to  shell 
them  is  equal  to  separting  trash  from  good  food. 

"  Grinding.*^  Said  R.  Papa:  To  chop  beets  is  the  same  as 
to  grind.  Splitting  wood  for  kindling  is  the  same  as  grinding. 
Said  R.  Ashi:  Splitting  leather  is  the  same  class  of  work  as 
cutting  by  measure  (if  he  is  particular  about  it). 

"  Kneadi?ig,  baking."  R.  Papa  said:  "The  Tana  of  the 
Mishna  omitted  the  cooking  of  spices  that  took  place  in  the 
tabernacle  and  instead  of  that  taught  about  baking."  It  is 
because  the  Tana  follows  the  order  of  baking  (first  comes  knead- 
ing, then  baking,  and  cooking  is  included  in  the  latter). 

"  Wool-shearing,  bleachittg.''  Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  in  the  name 
of  R.  Johanan  said:  Spinning  wool  from  a  live  animal  on  the 
Sabbath  makes  one  liable  for  three  sin-offerings ;  one  for  shear- 
ing, one  for  carding,  and  one  for  spinning.  R.  Kahana,  how- 
ever, said:  This  is  not  the  way  shearing,  carding,  and  spinning 
are  done  (hence  he  is  not  at  all  culpable). 

If  one  plucked  quills,  cut  ofT  their  tops,  and  singed  them  on 
both  sides,  the  rabbis  taught  that  he  is  liable  for  three  sin- 
offerings. 

Tying,  untying."  What  kind  of  tying  and  untying  was 
done  at  the  construction  of  the  tabernacle  ?  Rabha,  others 
say  R.  Ilayi,  said:  This  is  the  way  of  the  (snail)  fishers;  to  untie 
their  nets  from  one  load  and  tie  them  on  another. 

"  Sewing  on  with  two  stitches."  But  two  stitches  do  not 
hold  (hence  it  cannot  be  called  work)  ?     Said  Rabba  b.  b    Hana 


TRACT    SAliBAl'lI.  139 

in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan:   Provided  two  knots  are  made,  one 
at  each  end. 

Tearing  in  order  to  sciv  together  with  two  stitches. ' '  Was 
there  any  tearing  done  at  the  tabernacle  ?  Both  Rabba  and 
R.  Zera  said:  When  a  curtain  became  moth-eaten,  they  tore 
out  the  moth-eaten  part  and  sewed  it  together. 

R.  Zutra  b.  Tobiah  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said:  "  To  rip  a 
seam  on  the  Sabbath  makes  one  h'able;  to  learn  from  a  magician 
is  a  sin  involving  capital  punishment;  one  who  knows  the 
science  of  astronomy  and  does  not  make  use  of  it,  is  not  worth 
being  spoken  of."  What  is  a  magician?  Rabh  says  a  "  wiz- 
ard." Samuel  says  a  "  blasphemer."  R.  Simeon  b.  Pazi  in 
the  name  of  R.  Joshua  b.  Levi  said:  Whoever  knows  the  science 
of  astronomy,  and  does  not  occupy  himself  with  it  is  the  party 
alluded  to  [Isaiah,  v.  12]:  "  But  the  deeds  of  the  Lord  they 
regard  not  and  the  works  of  his  hands  they  behold  not."  Said 
Samuel  b.  Na'hmeni  in  the  name  of  R.  Jonathan:  "  Whence 
the  adduction  that  we  are  bound  to  learn  astronomy  ?"  From 
the  passage  [Deut.  iv.  6]:  "  Keep,  therefore,  and  do  them,  for 
this  is  your  wisdom  and  your  understanding  before  the  eyes  of 
the  nations."  And  what  kind  of  wisdom  is  before  the  eyes  of 
the  nations  ?     You  must  say  that  it  is  astronomy. 

"  Hunting  deer."  The  rabbis  taught:  To  catch  a  slug  and 
squeeze  it  so  that  it  bleed  is  a  transgression  involving  only  a  sin- 
offering.  R.  Jehudah  says,  involving  two  sin-offerings,  for  R. 
Jehudah  holds  that  squeezing  comes  in  the  class  of  threshing, 
but  the  rabbis  told  him  that  squeezing  is  not  threshing.  What 
reason  do  the  rabbis  give  for  their  opinion  ?  Said  Rabha:  Their 
reason  is  that  threshing  can  only  be  applied  to  produce  of  the 
soil. 

"  Slaughtering."  Under  which  category  ?  Rabh  said  "  dye- 
ing," and  Samuel  said  "taking  life."  Said  Rabh:  "I  said 
something  which  may  seem  absurd,  and  so  as  to  prevent  future 
generations  from  deriding  me  I  will  give  a  reason  for  what 
I  said:  Butchers  are  in  the  habit  of  coloring  the  throat  of  the 
carcasses  with  blood,  in  order  that  people  may  see  (that  the 
meat  is  still  fresh)  and  be  induced  to  buy." 

"  Sa/ting  the  hide,"  etc.  Is  not  salting  a  hide  preparing  it  ? 
Both  R.  Johanan  and  Resh  Lakish  said:  "  Strike  out  one  of 
them  in  the  Mishna  and  substitute  it  with  '  marking.'  " 

"  Scraping  the  hair  off,"  etc.  R.  Aha  b.  Ilanina  said:  To 
polish  a  floor  on  the  Sabbath  is  a  transgression  of  the  same 


I40  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

order  as  scraping  off  the  hair  of  the  hide.  Said  R.  Hyya  b. 
Abba:  R.  Ashi  told  me  three  things  in  the  name  of  R.  Joshua 
b.  Levi:  Sawing  rafters  on  the  Sabbath  (that  they  may  be 
equal  in  size  and  pointed)  makes  one  liable  the  same  as  "  cut- 
ting." Daubing  a  plaster  on  a  piece  of  cloth  makes  one  liable 
the  same  as  "  scraping  hair  off."  Smoothing  a  stone  makes 
one  culpable  of  "  hammering."  R.  Simeon  b.  Kisma  in  the 
name  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish,  said:  Painting  pictures  on  ves- 
sels or  blowing  out  glassware  makes  one  culpable  the  same  as 
hammering.  R.  Jehudah  said:  Removing  a  border  from  cloth 
also  makes  one  as  culpable  as  hammering;  but  only  in  case  one 
is  particular  about  having  the  border  remain  on  his  cloth. 

"  VVritittg two  letters."  The  rabbis  taught:  "  If  one  wrote 
one  large  letter  instead  of  two  small  ones,  he  is  not  guilty  of 
any  transgression ;  but  to  erase  a  large  letter,  in  the  place  of 
which  two  small  letters  can  be  written,  makes  one  liable  for 
a  sin-ofTering  (for  the  erasing  is  done  with  the  intent  to  write, 
and  two  small  letters  are  evidently  needed).  Said  R.  Mena'hem 
b.  Jossi:  "  This  is  the  only  case  where  the  law  is  more  rigorous 
with  erasing  than  with  writing." 

"Building,  demolishing,'"  etc.  Both  Rabba  and  R.  Zera 
said:  All  work  which  is  done  in  the  last  stages  is  considered  the 
same  as  hammering  (which  is  generally  the  finishing  work). 

"  These  are  the  principal  acts  of  labor."  "  These,"  to  ex- 
clude a  derivation  of  the  same  kind  as  the  principal  when  it  is 
done  with  the  principal  together,  and  as  to  which  R.  Eliezer 
makes  one  liable  for  the  derivation  also. 

"Less  one,"  to  exclude  the  extension  of  the  warp  or  the  woof, 
which  R.  Jehudah  added  to  the  principal  acts ;  but  the  rabbis  said : 
Extending  the  warp  is  included  in  warping  and  extending  the 
woof  is  included  in  weaving. 

MISHNA  ///, :  And  there  is  also  another  rule  which  was  laid 
down :  Whosoever  carries  out  on  the  Sabbath  such  things  as  are 
fit  and  proper  to  be  stored  and  in  such  a  quantity  as  is  usually 
stored,  is  liable ;  but  whatever  is  not  fit  and  proper  to  be  stored, 
nor  in  such  a  quantity  as  is  generally  stored,  only  he  who  would 
store  this  is  liable  (because  the  storing  shows  that  for  him  it  is 
valuable). 

GEMARA:  "Whatever  is  7iot  fit  and  proper :'  Said  R. 
Elazar :  The  latter  part  of  the  Mishna  is  not  in  accordance  with 
R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar,  who  said  in  the  following  Boraitha  :  "  There 
is  a  rule  that  all  which  is  not  fit  and  proper  to  be  stored  nor  in 


TRACT    SABBATH.  141 

such  a  quantity  as  is  generally  stored,  if  held  by  one  man  fit  and 
another  man  has  carried  it  out,  the  latter  becomes  liable  for  the 
intention  of  the  owner." 

MISHNA  TV. :  It  is  forbidden  to  carry  about  chopped  straw 
in  quantities  of  a  cow's  mouthful,  stalks  in  quantities  of  a  camel's 
mouthful,  stubble  in  quantities  of  a  lamb's  mouthful,  herbs  in 
quantities  of  a  kid's  mouthful,  leek  and  onion  leaves,  if  fresh, 
equal  in  size  to  a  dried  fig,  and  if  dry  in  quantities  of  a  kid's 
mouthful.  The  different  kinds  of  fodder  are,  however,  not  to  be 
counted  together,  as  the  prescribed  quantities  are  not  equal  for  all. 

GEMARA:  ''Chopped straw r  What  kind  ?  Said  R.  Jehudah: 
"  Pease  stalks."  When  Rabhin  came  to  Babylon  he  said  thus: 
There  is  no  diversity  of  opinion  concerning  the  carrying  out  of 
straw'in  quantities  of  a  cow's  mouthful  for  a  camel,  as  all  agree 
that  in  such  a  case  one  is  liable ;  the  point  of  their  differing  is 
concerning  the  carrying  out  of  stalks  (which  is  not  fit  food  for  a 
cow)  in  quantities  of  a  cow's  mouthful  for  a  cow.  R.  Johanan 
frees  him,  as  he  holds  that  unfit  food  cannot  be  regarded  as  nu- 
trition ;  and  Resh  Lakish  makes  him  liable,  as  he  holds  that  even 
such  is  considered  nutrition. 

^'Stubble  in  quantities  of  a  lamb's  jnouthful."  But  does  not  a 
Boraitha  state  "  the  size  of  a  dried  fig"?  Both  quantities  are 
equal. 

"Leek  and  onion  leaves,  if  fresh,"  etc.  Said  R.  Jossi  b.  Hanina: 
Inferior  food  is  not  to  be  counted  in  with  superior  (in  order  to 
make  out  the  prescribed  quantity).  Superior  food,  however,  may 
be  counted  with  the  inferior  (in  order  to  complete  the  prescribed 
quantity). 

MISHNA  F. :  The  carrying  out  of  an  article  of  food  the  size 
of  a  dried  fig  makes  one  liable.  And  the  different  kinds  of  them 
are  to  be  counted  together,  for  the  prescribed  quantity  is  the 
same  for  all  kinds,  with  the  exception  of  husks,  kernels,  and 
stalks;  likewise  bran,  both  coarse  and  fine.  R.  Jehudah  says 
that  the  husks  of  lentils  are  not  excepted,  because  they  are  boiled 
with  the  lentils  and  are  counted  in  the  same  (as  food). 

GEMARA:  ''Except  bran,"  etc.  Is  not  fine  as  well  as  coarse 
bran  to  be  counted  in  (the  same  as  food)?  Is  there  not  a  Mishna 
concerning  the  separation  of  the  first  dough,  that  one  is  bound  to 
separate  the  first  dough  made  of  flour  mixed  with  its  fine  or 
coarse  bran  ?  Answered  Abayi :  "  This  is  no  contradiction.  Poor 
people  only  generally  use  such  mixed  flour  (when  Sabbath  is  con- 
cerned something  possessing  real  value  is  always  spoken  of)." 


142  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

"  The  husks  of  lentils  are  not  excepted,"  etc.  Husks  of  len- 
tils only,  and  not  of  beans  ?  Did  not  a  Boraitha  state  that  R. 
Jehudah  said,  "  husks  of  beans  and  lentils  "  ?  This  presents  no 
difficulty.  The  Mishna  refers  to  husks  of  new  lentils  and  the 
Boraitha  refers  to  old  lentils  and  beans.  And  why  not  old  ones? 
Said  R.  Abuhu  :  Because  they  (the  husks  of  lentils  and  beans)  are 
black  and  when  dished  up  look  like  flies  in  a  bowl  (they  are  not 
eaten  with  the  food  and  therefore  are  not  counted  in). 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

REGULATIONS  CONCERNING  THE  PRESCRIBED  QUANTITIES  OF  VICT- 
UALS AND  BEVERAGES  WHICH  MUST  NOT  BE  CARRIED  ABOUT  ON 
THE    SABBATH. 

MISHNA/.  :  The  prescribed  quantities  (of  victuals  and  bever- 
ages) prohibited  to  be  carried  about  on  the  Sabbath  (are  as  fol- 
lows):  Sufficient  wine  in  a  goblet,  which  with  the  addition  of  a 
certain  quantity  of  water  would  make  a  full  goblet  of  wine  (fit  to 
drink);*  milk  to  the  quantity  of  a  mouthful,  honey  sufficient  to 
cover  a  wound,  with,  oil  sufficient  to  anoint  a  small  limb  with,  and 
water  in  quantities  sufficient  for  a  medical  bath  for  the  eyes.  For 
all  other  liquids  and  also  of  whatever  can  be  poured  out,  the  pre- 
scribed quantity  is  a  quarter  of  a  lug  (about  a  quart).  R.  Simeon 
says  :  The  prescribed  quantities  for  the  liquids  enumerated  in  this 
Mishna  are  also  a  quarter  of  a  lug,  and  the  various  prescribed 
quantities  specified  apply  only  to  those  who  store  such  liquids. 

GEMARA:  A  Boraitha,  in  addition  to  this  Mishna,  states: 
"  The  quantity  which  suffices  for  a  good  goblet  of  wine."  What 
is  to  be  understood  by  a  good  goblet  ?  The  goblet  used  in  bene- 
diction t  after  meals, 

R.  Na'hman  in  the  name  of  R.  Abuhu  said  :  "  A  goblet  used  at 
benediction  after  meals  must  contain  no  less  than  a  fourth  of  a 
quarter  lug  (of  pure  wine),  so  that  when  mixed  with  water  the 
prescribed  quantity  (a  quarter  lug)  will  be  made."  Said  Rabha  : 
We  have  learned  this  in  our  Mishna :  "  Sufficient  wine  in  a  gob- 
let, which  with  addition  of  water  would  make  a  full  goblet " — 
commented  on  by  the  Boraitha  to  mean  "  which  would  make  a 
good  goblet."  From  the  close  of  the  Mishna  we  learn  :  "  For  all 
other  liquids  the  prescribed  quantity  is  a  quarter  of  a  lug."  [And] 
he  is  in  accordance  with  his  theory  elsewhere,  that  wine  which  is 
not  strong  enough  to  be  mixed  with  three  parts  of  water  is  not 

*  The  wines  used  in  Palestine  were  so  strong  that  they  h-id  to  be  mixed  with 
water  in  order  to  make  them  fit  to  drink. 

\  At  the  benediction  after  me.ils  a  goblet  possessing  certain  qualities  and  which  is 
called  a  goblet  of  benediction  must  be  used,  as  ordained  in  the  Tract  Benedictions. 


144  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

considered  wine  at  all.  Said  Abayi :  "There  are  two  objections 
to  this :  Firstly,  there  is  a  Mishna  that  wine  fit  to  drink  is  such 
as  has  been  mixed  with  two-thirds  water,  like  the  wine  of  Sharon  ; 
secondly,  do  you  think  that  the  water  in  the  pitcher  (intended  for 
mixing  with  the  wine)  is  counted  in?"  Rejoined  Rabha  :  The 
first  objection  does  not  hold  good,  as  Sharon  wine  is  an  exception, 
which  although  weak  is  nevertheless  good  ;  or  it  may  be  that  there 
the  particularity  is  the  color,  Avhich  is  not  changed  by  an  addition 
of  two-thirds ;  but  concerning  taste,  I  say  that  only  one  which 
can  bear  three-fourths  of  water  is  considered.  As  to  the  second 
objection,  concerning  water  in  the  pitcher,  it  is  also  nothing  as 
concerning  Sabbath.  The  quality  and  not  the  quantity  is  consid- 
ered, and  the  wine  in  question  is  of  that  quality. 

There  is  a  Boraitha  that  the  prescribed  quantity  for  the  ex- 
tract of  wine  is  the  size  of  an  olive.  So  said  R.  Nathan.  And 
R.  Joseph  said  that  R.  Jehudah  agrees  with  him  in  a  Mishna,  Tract 
Nidah  (which  will  be  translated  there). 

The  rabbis  taught :  The  prescribed  quantity  for  animal  milk 
is  the  equivalent  of  a  mouthful ;  for  human  milk  and  the  white  of 
an  egg,  as  much  as  is  used  for  the  preparation  of  a  salve  for  a  sore 
eye ;  when  mixed  with  water,  the  prescribed  quantity  is  as  much 
as  is  used  to  bathe  both  eyes  with. 

"Honej'  S2ifficient  to  cover  a  wound  iv it h.''  A  Boraitha  states: 
"  Sufficient  to  cover  the  mouth  of  a  wound  with." 

Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh  :  The  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He,  has  created  nothing  useless  in  the  world.  He  created  the 
snail  as  a  remedy  for  a  sore,  the  fly  for  the  sting  of  a  wasp,  the 
mosquito  for  the  bite  of  a  serpent,  the  serpent  for  the  mange,  and 
the  lizard  for  the  bite  of  a  scorpion. 

The  rabbis  taught :  There  are  five  terrors  through  which  the 
strong  succumb  to  the  weak.  The  Maphgia  terrorizes  the  lion,* 
the  mosquito  the  elephant,  the  lizard  the  scorpion,  the  swallow 
the  eagle,  and  the  kilbith  (a  small  fish)  the  whale.  Said  R. 
Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh :  Is  any  similarity  to  be  found  in 
the  Scripture  ?  [Amos,  v.  9]  :  "  That  causeth  wasting  to  prevail 
against  the  strong." 

R.  Zera  once  met  R.  Jehudah  standing  at  the  door  of  his 
(R.  Jehudah's)  father-in-law  in  a  very  cheerful  mood,  and  dis- 
posed  to  answer  a  whole  world  full   of  questions.     He  asked 

*  Maphgia  is  a  species  of  insect,  unknown  to  us  at  the  present  day,  of  which 
Rashi  said  that  it  was  a  small  animal  whose  voice  was  so  strong  that  when  a  lion  hears 
it,  he  is  afraid  of  it,  taking  it  for  a  very  great  animal. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  145 

him:  "  What  is  the  reason  that  (in  a  flock)  the  she-goats  gen- 
erally go  ahead  of  the  sheep  ?  "  And  he  answered:  "  In  accord- 
ance with  tlic  Creation:  At  first  darkness,  then  h'ght  "  (she-goats 
are  generally  dark  and  lambs  [or  sheep]  white).  "  Why  are  she- 
goats  not  covered  with  a  tail  ?  "  asked  the  former  again.  And  he 
answered:  "  Those  who  cover  us  are  (in  turn)  covered,  and  those 
that  do  not  cover  us  are  not  covered."  (Because  sheep  provide 
us  with  wool,  they  are  also  provided  with  cover.)  "  Why  has  a 
camel  a  short  tail  ?  "  "  Because  it  feeds  on  thorns  (in  order  that 
the  thorns  may  not  catch  in  its  tail)." 

And  "  Why  has  an  ox  a  long  tail  ?"  "  Because  he  grazes  in 
plains  and  must  protect  himself  from  the  gnats."  "  Why  are 
the  feelers  of  a  locust  soft  ?"  "  Because  the  locusts  swarm  in 
fields;  were  their  feelers  hard,  the  locusts  would  be  blinded  by 
losing  them  in  knocking  against  trees,  for  Samuel  said,  all  that 
is  necessary  to  blind  a  locust  is  to  tear  off  his  feelers."  "  What 
is  the  reason  that  the  lower  eyelids  of  a  hen  are  turned  up  (and 
cover  the  upper  eyelids)  ? "  "  Because  a  hen  soars  to  her  roost 
and  (in  a  house  full  of  smoke)  she  might  be  blinded  by  the  smoke 
from  below." 

The  rabbis  taught  the  following:  "  Three  creatures  grow 
stronger  as  they  grow  older,  viz. :  Fishes,  serpents,  and  swine." 

' '  Oil  sufficient  to  anoint  a  small  limb  with, ' '  i.e. ,  a  little  finger. 
At  the  school  of  R.  Janai  it  was  thus  explained:  "  It  means  the 
smallest  limb  of  a  one-day-old  infant."  And  the  same  was  said 
by  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar. 

Water  sufficient  for  a  medical  bath  for  the  eyes."  Said 
Abayi:  Let  us  see!  Of  an  article  which  is  very  often 'used  for 
one  purpose  and  seldom  for  another,  the  rabbis  always  leniently 
permitted  the  maximum  quantity  to  be  used,  as  the  prescribed 
quantity,  of  the  article  much  in  use.  Again,  when  an  article  is 
used  alike  for  several  purposes,  the  rabbis  restrict  the  prescribed 
quantity  to  its  minimum:  (to  be  more  explicit)  wine  is  frequently 
used  as  a  beverage  and  only  at  times  as  a  medicament ;  hence  the 
rabbis  regard  it  solely  as  a  beverage  (and  determine  the  maximum 
quantity) ;  the  same  is  the  case  with  milk ;  honey,  however,  which 
is  used  to  a  greater  extent  as  a  medicine  than  for  nutritive  pur- 
poses, is  regarded  as  a  medicine  and  therefore  restricted  to  the 
prescribed  quantity  for  medicines  (which  is  a  smaller  quantity 
than  a  beverage).  What  is  the  reason,  then,  that  the  rabbis  re- 
strict water,  which  is  certainly  more  of  a  beverage  than  a  medi- 
cament, to  the  minimum  quantity?  Rabha  answered:  They 
VOL.  I. — 10 


146  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

hold  with  the  opinion  of  Samuel,  who  declared  that  all  liquids 
used  as  medicine  for  the  eyes  inflame  and  blind,  except  water, 
which  soothes  and  does  not  blind  (and  in  this  case  the  Mishna 
has  reference  to  one  who  carried  about  water  on  the  Sabbath  as 
a  medicament  for  the  eyes). 

"  For  all  other  liquids,  the  prescribed  quantity  is  a  quarter  of  a 
big.''  The  rabbis  taught:  For  blood  and  all  other  liquids  the 
prescribed  quantity  is  a  quarter  of  a  lug.  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar 
said  the  prescribed  quantity  for  blood  is  as  much  as  is  used  to 
apply  to  one  eye ;  because  that  quantity  is  used  when  the  eye  is 
afflicted  with  a  cataract. 

All  these  prescribed  quantities  apply  only  to  those  who  carry 
(the  victuals  or  beverages)  about.  To  those,  however,  who  store 
them  (the  victuals  or  beverages)  the  carrying  of  even  the  least 
imaginable  quantity  is  prohibited  (because  from  his  storing  them 
we  see  that  he  considers  them  valuable);  but  R.  Simeon  says  all 
these  prescribed  quantities  apply  to  such  as  stored  (victuals  and 
beverages  and  hence  considered  them  valuable);  but  as  for  per- 
sons who  only  carried  them  out,  for  all  beverages  (whether  used 
also  for  medical  purposes  or  not)  if  carried  out  in  any  quantities 
less  than  a  quarter  of  a  lug  there  is  no  culpability. 

The  former  teacher  said  that  "  those  prescribed  quantities 
only  refer  to  those  who  carry  out,"  but  to  "  those  who  store  them 
the  carrying  of  even  the  least  imaginable  quantity  is  prohibited." 
Is  the  one  who  stores  not  also  a  carrier  (he  is  culpable  for  carry- 
ing and  not  for  storing)  ? 

Answered  Abayi:  The  Boraitha  treats  of  a  case  where  a  mas- 
ter ordered  his  retainer  to  clear  off  the  table.  If  the  retainer 
removed  something  of  value  to  everybody  from  the  table,  it 
constituted  a  quantity  which  must  not  be  carried  about  on  the 
Sabbath.  If  the  thing  was  of  value  only  to  the  master  and 
the  retainer  carried  it  out,  he  (the  retainer)  is  culpable,  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  the  thing  was  of  value  to  his  master  alone. 
(Hence  he  is  called  one  who  stores,  and  not  a  carrier)  for  it  signi- 
fies that  the  thing  is  worth  storing. 

Again,  the  former  teacher  said:  "  And  the  sages  agree  with 
R.  Simeon  that  the  prescribed  quantity  of  slops  is  a  quarter  of  a 
lug."  Of  what  use  are  slops  ?  Said  R.  Jehudah:  "  To  prepare 
mortar  with. ' '  But  were  we  not  taught  that  the  prescribed  quan- 
tity for  mortar  is  only  as  much  as  suffices  to  make  the  mouth  of 
a  bellows-pipe  with  ?  Aye,  but  for  the  purpose  of  preparing 
mortar,  a  man  would  not  trouble  himself  to  carry  out  so  small 


TRACT    SABBATH.  147 

a  quantity  as  is  sufficient  to  make  a  mouth  of  a  bellows-pipe, 
hence  a  quarter  of  a  lug  would  be  the  least  that  would  be  carried 
out  to  make  mortar  with. 

MISHNA  //. :  The  prescribed  quantity  for  rope  is  as  much 
as  suffices  to  make  a  handle  for  a  basket;  for  reeds,  as  much  as 
suffices  to  hang  a  fine  or  coarse  sieve  thereon:  R.  Jehudah  says: 
As  much  as  is  sufficient  to  take  the  measure  of  a  child's  shoe ;  for 
paper,  as  much  as  suffices  to  write  a  toll-bill  on — a  toll-bill  itself 
must  7iot  be  carried  out;  the  prescribed  quantity  for  paper  that 
has  been  erased  is  as  much  as  will  wrap  the  top  of  a  perfume 
bottle.  The  prescribed  quantity  for  vellum  is  as  much  as  suffices 
for  the  covering  of  an  amulet;  for  parchment,  as  much  as 
suffices  for  the  writing  of  the  smallest  portion  of  the  phylacteries, 
which  is  "  Hear,  O  Israel " ;  for  ink,  as  much  as  is  necessary  for 
the  writing  of  two  letters  (characters);  for  paint,  as  much  as  will 
paint  one  eye.  The  prescribed  quantity  for  (bird)  lime  is  as  much 
as  will  suffice  to  put  on  a  lime  twig;  for  pitch  or  sulphur,  as 
much  as  will  cover  a  hole  (in  a  quicksilver  tube) ;  for  wax, 
as  much  as  will  fill  up  a  small  leakage  (in  a  utensil);  for  loam,  as 
much  as  suffices  to  make  an  orifice  for  a  pair  of  bellows  used  by 
goldsmiths;  R.  Jehudah  says  the  prescribed  quantity  for  loam 
is  as  much  as  will  make  a  stand  for  a  goldsmith's  crucible;  for 
clay,  as  much  as  will  cover  the  mouth  of  a  goldsmith's  crucible; 
for  lime,  as  much  as  will  cover  the  little  finger  of  a  maiden;  R. 
Jehudah  says  for  lime  the  prescribed  quantity  is  as  much  as  will 
cover  the  temple  of  a  maiden ;  R.  Nehemiah  says  as  much  as 
will  cover  the  back  part  of  a  maiden's  temple. 

GEMARA;  "  For  paper,  as  much  as  suffices  to  write  a  toll-bill 
on.''  There  is  a  Boraitha:  "  The  legal  size  of  a  toll-bill  is  a  piece 
of  paper  large  enough  to  contain  two  letters."  Is  this  not  con- 
tradictory to  the  Boraitha  which  says  that  the  carrying  out  of  a 
piece  of  blank  paper  large  enough  for  two  letters  of  ordinary  size 
to  be  written  on  makes  one  liable?  Answered  R.  Shesheth: 
"  The  two  letters  referred  to  by  the  Mishna  are  the  letters  used 
by  the  toll-master  (usually  extra  large  letters).  Rabha,  how- 
ever, said  that  the  piece  of  paper  referred  to  is  large  enough  for 
two  letters  and  has  a  margin  by  which  it  can  be  held. 

The  rabbis  taught:  If  one  carry  out  on  the  Sabbath  an  un- 
paid promissory  note  he  is  liable,  but  not  so  for  a  paid  one.  But 
R.  Jehudah  said:  The  same  is  the  case  with  a  paid-up  note,  for 
its  value  lies  therein,  that  the  owner  may  show  it  to  a  prospective 
creditor  in  order  to  prove  promptness  of  former  payments.    What 


148  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

is  the  point  of  their  differing  ?  Said  R.  Joseph:  "  They  differ 
if  it  is  allowed  to  preserve  a  paid  note.  According  to  the  rabbis 
it  is  prohibited,  and  according  to  R.  Jehudah  it  may  be  done.* 

"  For  vellum  is  as  much  as  suffices  to  make  a  cover  for  an 
atnulet."  Rabha questioned  R.  Na'hman:  "  Of  whatsize  ?"  and 
the  latter  answered:  "  As  we  were  taught  in  the  Mishna,  as  much 
as  will  suffice  to  make  a  cover  for  an  amulet."  And  what  is  the 
size  in  regard  to  tanning  ?  The  same  quantity.  And  where  do 
you  take  this  from  ?  From  the  Mishna  farther  on,  that  gives  the 
same  quantity  for  wool  preparing  to  be  woven  and  for  already 
woven.  The  same  is  here  as  it  is  for  tanning ;  the  quantity  is 
the  same  as  if  already  tanned.  (The  further  discussion  is  re- 
peated in  many  places,  and  each  is  translated  in  its  proper  place.) 

"  Parchment  as  much  as  suffices  to  write  thereon  the  smallest 
portion,**  etc.  Is  this  not  a  contradiction  to  the  Boraitha  which 
teaches  that  the  prescribed  quantity  for  parchment  and  double 
parchment  {do-B;iGro<i)  is  as  much  as  suffices  to  write  a  Mezuzah 
(inscription  on  the  door-posts)  on  ?  The  Mezuzah  mentioned  in 
the  Boraitha  refers  to  the  Mezuzah  contained  in  the  phylacteries. 
Does  the  Boraitha  call  phylacteries  Mezuzah  ?  Yea,  it  does  else- 
where. But  since  the  latter  part  of  the  Boraitha  teaches  explicitly 
that  the  prescribed  quantity  for  parchment  is  as  much  as  is  re- 
quired for  writing  the  smallest  portion  of  the  phylacteries,  which 
is  "  Hear,  O  Israel,"  is  it  not  to  be  assumed  that  in  the  former 
part  of  the  Boraitha  a  Mezuzah  proper  is  meant  ?  Read:  What 
is  the  prescribed  quantity  for  parchment  and  double  parchment  ? 
For  the  latter  as  much  as  is  required  for  the  writing  of  a  Mezuzah ; 
and  the  former,  for  the  writing  of  the  smallest  portion  of  the 
phylacteries,  which  is  "  Hear,  O  Israel." 

Rabh  said:  "  Double  parchment  is  the  same  as  parchment. 
The  same  as  we  may  write  the  portions  of  the  phylacteries  on 
parchment,  so  may  we  also  write  them  on  double  parchment." 
Were  we«not  taught  *' parchmefit  sufficient,"  etc.,  which  cer- 
tainly does  not  mean  double  parchment  ?  Nay,  it  is  only  a 
better  observance  to  write  on  parchment  than  on  double  parch- 
ment. 

"  For  ink,'*  etc.  A  Boraitha  adds:  The  prescribed  quantity 
for  dry  ink  is  as  much  as  will  suffice  for  the  writing  of  two  let- 
ters; for  prepared  ink  as  much  as  a  quill  or  stub  will  require  to 
write  the  two  letters  with.     Said  Rabha:   For  carrying  out  suffi- 

*  Abayi  and  Rabba  also  discuss  the  same  note,  but  this  is  repeated  in  the  Third 
Gate,  in  whose  translation  we  are  now  engaged,  and  is,  therefore,  omitted  here. 


liiACr    SxVUBATH.  149 

cient  ink  for  two  letters  and  writing  the  two  letters  wliile  carry- 
ing the  ink,  one  is  culpable;  for  the  writing  is  equivalent  to 
depositing  a  thing  in  a  place.  But  for  carrying  out  sufficient  ink 
for  one  letter  only,  and  writing  that  letter  while  carrying  the 
ink,  afterward  carrying  out  another  quantity  of  ink  sufficient  for 
one  letter  and  writing  the  other  letter  while  carrj'ing  the  ink, 
one  is  not  culpable ;  for  by  the  time  the  second  letter  was  written 
(the  ink  of  the  first  letter  dried  out  and)  the  prescribed  quantity 
of  ink  was  not  visible.  Again  Rabha  said:  For  carrj'ing  out 
food  to  the  size  of  one-half  of  a  dried  fig,  laying  it  down,  and 
then  carrying  out  another  quantity  of  like  size  (one  is  not  cul- 
pable), for  it  is  considered  as  if  the  first  quantity  had  been  con- 
sumed by  fire.  But  why  should  it  be  thus  considered  ?  Is  it  not 
lying  there  yet  ?  He  means  to  say:  If  one  picked  up  the  first 
before  he  laid  down  the  second,  the  first  is  to  be  considered  as  if 
consumed  by  fire,  and  hence  one  is  not  culpable. 

"  For  paint,'"  etc.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  people  never  dye  one 
eye  only  ?  Said  R.  II una:  Modest  women  veil  one  eye  and  only 
paint  the  other.  To  this  explanation  some  one  objected,  viz. : 
For  paint  as  a  remedy  the  prescribed  quantity  is  as  much  as  will 
dye  one  eye,  said  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar,  but  as  a  moans  for 
beautifying  the  prescribed  quantity  is  as  much  as  will  dye  two 
eyes.  Hillel,  the  son  of  R.  Samuel  b.  Nahmeni,  explained  it  by 
saying  that  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar  referred  to  country  damsels  who 
dye  both  eyes. 

' '  For  bird  lime  as  much  as  is  sufficient  to  put  on  a  lime  twig. 
There  is  a  Boraitha:  As  much  as  is  sufficient  to  put  on  a  twig 
for  the  purpose  of  catching  birds. 

"  For  pitch  and  sulphur,''  etc.  A  Boraitha  states:  Sufficient 
to  fill  up  a  hole  in  a  quicksilver  tube. 

"  For  loam,''  etc.  A  Boraitha  states:  Sufficient  to  fill  up  the 
cracks  in  a  small  stove. 

"  For  clay,"  etc.  The  rabbis  taught:  It  is  prohibited  to  carry 
out  hair  for  the  purpose  of  mixing  it  with  clay  used  to  cover  a 
goldsmith's  bellows-pipe  with. 

"  For  lime,"  etc.  A  Boraitha  states:  To  cover  the  smallest 
finger  of  a  damsel.  Said  R.  Jchudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh: 
Daughters  of  Israel,  when  they  become  of  age,  and  they  have 
not  yet  developed  the  signs  of  puberty,  the  poor  smear  their 
bodies  with  lime,  the  rich  ones  with  fine  meal,  and  princesses 
with  myrrh  oil.  What  is  myrrh  oil  ?  ffTixnrtf.  And  R.  Jere- 
miah b.  Aba  said  :    Olive  oil  from  olives  which  were  only  one- 


150  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

third  ripe.  There  is  a  Boraitha:  R.  Jehudah  said:  It  is  called 
(in  Menachoth)  anphiknun  (o/Acpaviov^ ;  and  why  do  they  anoint 
with  this  ?  Because  it  removes  the  hair  and  makes  the  com- 
plexion clear.  R.  Bibi  had  such  a  daughter  and  he  anointed  her 
with  the  same,  each  member  of  her  body  separately;  and  finally 
one  of  the  prominent  men  paid  him  four  hundred  zuz  and 
married  her.  He  had  a  Gentile  neighbor  who  also  had  such  a 
daughter,  and  he  anointed  her  whole  body  at  one  time,  and  she 
died;  said  he:  "  R.  Bibi  has  murdered  my  daughter."  Said  R. 
Na'hman:  "  R.  Bibi,  who  used  to  drink  beer,  his  daughter 
needed  the  anointing,  but  our  daughters  do  not  need  it,  for  we 
do  not  drink  beer." 

"  As  much  as  is  sufficient  to  cover, ^*  etc.  What  is  meant  by 
Kalkub  and  Andiphi  ?  Said  Rabh:  The  temple,  and  the 
hair  between  it  and  the  ear.  Are  we  to  understand  from  the 
Mishna  that  the  prescribed  quantity  permitted  by  R.  Jehudah 
is  larger  than  that  of  the  rabbis  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  rabbis 
allow  the  larger  prescribed  quantity  ?  Aye;  R.  Jehudah  allows 
a  larger  quantity  than  R.  Nehemiah,  but  still  a  smaller  quantity 
than  the  rabbis.  Or  it  is  possible  that  an  Andiphi  means  a  fore- 
head, from  the  following  narration :  "  It  happened  that  a  Galilean 
once  came  to  Babylon  and  was  requested  to  lecture  on  meta- 
physics. The  Galilean  consented  and  began:  I  will  interpret  to 
you  something  in  the  style  of  R.  Nehemiah.  Meanwhile  a  wasp 
flew  out  of  the  wall,  stung  him  on  the  Andiphi  (forehead)  and 
the  Galilean  died  on  the  spot.  It  was  said  that  he  died  a  merited 
death."* 

MISHNA  ///. :  For  sealing-wax  the  prescribed  quantity  is  as 
much  as  is  required  for  the  sealing  of  a  bale  of  goods,  so  is  the 
decree  of  R.  Aqiba;  the  sages,  however,  say  for  the  sealing 
of  a  letter.  For  dung  or  fine  sand  as  much  as  is  required  to 
fertilize  (the  soil  around)  a  cabbage  stalk,  according  to  R.  Aqiba, 
and  to  the  sages  as  much  as  is  required  to  fertilize  (the  soil 
around)  a  leek  stalk.  For  coarse  sand  as  much  as  is  required 
to  fill  a  trowel,  for  reed  as  much  as  is  required  to  make  a  writing- 
pen  from,  or  should  it  be  thick  or  split,  as  much  as  is  required 
to  fry  the  softest  beaten  egg  with,  (which)  mixed  with  oil,  (lies) 
in  a  hot  shell. 

GEMARA:  "  Sufficient  to  fill  a  trozvel"*  A  Boraitha  states: 
(For  coarse  sand  the  prescribed  quantity  is)  as  much  as  is  required 

*  A  Mishna  teaches  elsewhere  that  it  is  a  sin  to  lecture  on  metaphysics,  outside  of 
the  university. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  151 

to  fill  the  trowel  of  a  plasterer.  Who  is  the  Tana  that  holds  that 
sand  is  an  improvement  on  plaster  ?  Said  R.  Hisda:  R.  Jehudah 
of  a  Boraitha  (Baba  Bathra,  6od) ;  Rabha,  however,  said  it  may  be 
also  in  accordance  with  the  rabbis,  as  they  hold  that  the  spoiling 
(of  the  whiteness)  of  the  plaster  (through  the  admixture  of  sand) 
is  an  improvement  of  its  durability. 

For  reed  as  much  as  is  required  to  make  a  writing-pen. ' '  A 
Boraitha  teaches:  A  pen  that  reaches  the  joints  of  the  fingers. 

Or  should  it  be  thick.''  A  Boraitha  teaches:  To  fry  a 
beaten  egg  mixed  with  oil.  Said  Mar  b.  Rabhina  to  his  son: 
"  Didst  thou  ever  hear  what  is  understood  by  the  softest  egg  ?  " 
He  answered  that  R.  Shesheth  said  it  was  a  hen's  egg.  Why 
does  the  Mishna  call  it  a  light  (soft)  egg  ?  Because  the  sages 
found  that  no  eggs  are  cooked  as  quickly  as  pullets'  eggs. 
Why  is  it  that  all  other  prescribed  quantities  prohibited  to  be 
carried  out  on  the  Sabbath  are  of  the  size  of  a  dried  fig,  and  here 
the  quantity  is  of  the  size  of  an  egg  ?  Answered  R.  Na'hman: 
"  Even  here  is  meant  the  quantity  of  a  dried  fig  from  an  ^^'g.'* 

MISHNA  IV.  :  The  quantity  of  a  bone  is  that  large  enough 
to  be  made  into  a  spoon — R.  Jehudah  says  large  enough  to  be 
made  into  a  key;  glass  of  sufficient  size  to  be  used  for  scraping 
off  the  points  of  a  weaver's  spindles;  a  splinter  or  a  stone  large 
enough  to  throw  at  a  bird — R.  Elazar  b.  Jacob  says  to  throw  at 
an  animal. 

GEMARA:  Is  it  to  be  understood  from  the  Mishna  that  the 
prescribed  quantity  allowed  by  R.  Jehudah  is  larger  than  that 
allowed  by  the  rabbis  ?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  rabbis  allow  the 
larger?     Said  Ulla:  (R.  Jehudah  refers  to)  the  tooth  of  a  key. 

"  Glass  of  sufficient  size,"  etc.  A  Boraitha  states:  Sufficient 
glass  to  cut  two  threads  at  once. 

"  A  splinter,''  etc.  Said  R.  Na'hman  in  the  name  of  R. 
Johanan :  "Provided  it  is  large  enough  to  hurt."  But  how 
large  should  it  be  ?  R,  Elazar  b.  Jacob  teaches  in  a  Boraitha: 
The  weight  of  ten  zuz. 

Zunin  once  entered  the  college  and  questioned  the  teachers. 
"  What  is  the  prescribed  quantity  for  gravel  used  in  privy  for 
toilet  purposes?"  He  was  answered:  "The  equivalent  in 
quantity  to  the  size  of  an  olive,  a  nut,  or  an  egg,"  Said  he: 
It  would  then  be  necessary  to  carry  along  a  scale."  So  they 
deliberated,  and  decided  that  the  quantity  should  be  a  handful. 

Rabba  b.  R.  Shilla  asked  of  R.  Hisda:  "Is  it  permitted  to 
carry  up  gravel  to  the  roof  (for  the  purpose  cited  above,  as  it  is 


iS2  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

extra  trouble,  which  is  prohibited  on  the  Sabbath)  ?"  He  an- 
swered: "Precious  is  the  honor  of  man.  For  honor's  sake, 
even  a  direct  scriptural  commandment  may  be  circumvened !  " 

Said  R.  Johanan  :  It  is  forbidden  to  use  fragments  of  earthen- 
ware for  toilet  purposes  (after  doing  one's  necessities)  on  the 
Sabbath.  What  is  the  reason  ?  Is  it  to  say  because  it  is  dan- 
gerous, then  it  should  be  forbidden  also  on  week  days;  or  is  it  to 
say  because  of  witchcraft,  it  would  also  be  prohibited  on  week 
days  ?  What  then  is  the  reason  ?  Is  it  because  it  may  remove 
the  hair  (from  the  posterior)  ?  Would  this  not  be  an  act  per- 
formed without  intention  (and  work  done  unintentionally,  he  is 
of  the  opinion  is  permissible)  ?  R.  Nathan  b.  Ashia  answered : 
A  great  man  made  the  assertion ;  we  have  to  find,  therefore,  a 
reason  for  it.  There  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  fragments  of 
earthenware  are  prohibited  to  be  used  on  week  days,  when  some 
other  things  can  easily  be  obtained;  but  on  Sabbath,  if  nothing 
else  happens  to  be  on  hand,  nor  may  be  bought,  the  fragments 
might  be  considered  as  utensils;  and,  lest  one  might  be  inclined 
to  think  that  for  this  reason  they  would  be  permitted  to  be  used, 
he  informs  us  that  they  are  not.  Can  witchcraft  be  exercised 
through  the  agency  of  fragments  ?  Aye ;  for  the  following 
proves  it : 

R.  Hisda  and  Rabba  b.  R.  Hana  once  travelled  in  a  ship, 
and  a  matron  who  wanted  to  go  on  the  same  ship  asked  their 
permission  to  sit  down  near  them,  which  they  refused.  She 
pronounced  a  certain  word  and  the  ship  stood  still,  but  they  in 
turn  pronounced  a  certain  word  and  the  ship  moved  on.  She 
then  said:  "  It  grieves  me  sorely  that  I  cannot  inflict  some  pun- 
ishment on  you,  seeing  that  you  use  no  fragments  for  toilet  pur- 
poses, nor  do  you  kill  the  vermin  in  garments,  nor  do  you  pull 
out  vegetables  from  a  bundle  (but  cut  the  bundle  first)."  (Hence 
it  may  be  seen  that  fragments  can  be  used  as  a  means  for  the 
exercise  of  witchcraft.) 

R.  Huna  said  to  his  son  Rabba:  Why  do  you  not  go  more 
frequently  to  R.  Hisda,  who  expounds  the  law  so  pointedly  ? 
Answered  the  son  :  "  Of  what  use  would  it  be?  He  never  taught 
me  but  mere  worldly  knowledge,  such  as,  for  instance  :  Not  to  sit 
down  to  excremcntize  with  a  jerk  nor  to  force  myself  too  much, 
lest  the  intestines  come  out  and  endanger  life."  R.  Huna  then 
rejoined:  "  Thou  sayest  '  mere  worldly  knowledge.'  He  is  in- 
terested in  the  life  of  the  people,  and  you  call  it  mere  worldly 
knowledge.     So  much  the  more  should  you  go  to  him." 


TRACT    SABBATH.  153 

R.  Hisda  and  Rabhina  differ  as  to  the  consequences  of  one 
withholding  to  perform  his  necessities.  One  is  of  the  opinion 
that  foul  breath  is  the  result,  while  the  other  holds  that  the  entire 
body  assumes  a  bad  odor.  The  opinion  of  the  latter  is  sup- 
ported by  the  following  Boraitha:  "  He  who  takes  nourishment 
while  in  need  of  performing  his  necessities  is  compared  to  a  stove 
in  which  a  fire  was  built  without  previously  removing  the  ashes, 
which  is  invariably  the  cause  of  a  bad  smell.  One  who  feels  like 
performing  his  necessities,  but  cannot  do  so,  R.  Hisda  advises 
that  he  keep  on  sitting  down  and  getting  up  until  able.  R. 
Hanan  from  Neherdai  advises  him  to  look  for  another  place,  but 
the  rabbis  say  the  sole  remedy  is  to  think  of  nothing  else." 

The  rabbis  taught :  One  who  is  about  to  eat  a  hearty  meal 
should  walk  ten  times  four  ells  or  four  times  ten  ells,  then  per- 
form a  (natural)  necessity,  and  after  that  go  in  and  sit  down  to 
the  meal. 

MISHNA  V. :  The  prescribed  quantity  of  fragments  (of 
earthenware)  is  the  size  of  such  as  are  placed  between  two 
boards,  is  the  decree  of  R.  Jchudah.  R.  Meir  says,  of  a  size 
sufficient  to  stir  a  fire  with.  R.  Jossi,  of  a  size  to  receive  (hold) 
a  quarter  of  a  lug.  Said  R.  Meir :  Although  no  positive  proof  for 
my  assertion  can  be  found  in  the  Scripture,  still  a  vague  refer- 
ence can  be  deduced  from  the  passage  [Isaiah,  xxx.  14]:  "  So 
that  there  cannot  be  found  among  their  fragments  a  sherd  to  rake 
fire  from  a  hearth."  Said  R.  Jossi:  "Therefrom  you  would 
adduce  your  proof  ?  It  says  immediately  after  that  [ibid.,  ibid.], 
'  and  to  draw  water  from  a  pit.*  " 

GEMARA:  We  must  assume  that  the  prescribed  quantity 
allowed  by  R.  Jossi  is  larger  than  that  allowed  by  R.  Meir;  but 
the  scriptural  text  shows  that  R.  Meir  allows  the  larger;  because, 
is  it  possible  that  the  prophet  will  curse  them  with  a  larger  object 
after  having  cursed  them  with  a  smaller  ?  Said  Abayi :  R.  Meir 
also  means  a  fragment  used  to  stir  a  big  fire  with ;  hence  his  frag- 
ment is  larger  than  R.  Jossi's. 

"  Said  R.  /ossi,"  etc.  Is  not  R.  Jossi's  answer  correct  ? 
What  could  R.  Meir  rejoin  ?  R.  Meir  might  say  that  the  prophet 
intends  to  convey  that  not  only  shall  they  not  have  anything 
of  the  least  value  left,  but  they  shall  not  even  have  anything 
that  is  as  valueless  as  a  piece  of  fragment  big  enough  to  contain 
a  drop  of  water. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

RABBI    AQIBA's   REGULATIONS   ON    DIFFERENT   SUBJECTS. 

MISHNA /. :  R.  Aqibasaid:  Whence  do  we  deduce  that  one 
who  carries  an  idol  is  as  unclean  (ritually)  as  a  woman  suffering 
from  menstruation  ?  From  the  passage  [Isaiah,  xxx.  23] :  "  Thou 
wilt  cast  them  away  as  a  filthy  thing.*  '  Get  thee  hence ! '  wilt 
thou  say  unto  them."  Thus,  in  the  same  manner  as  a  woman 
suffering  from  menstruation  causes  (ritual)  uncleanness,  so  does 
also  an  idol. 

GEMARA:  Rabba  said:  The  passage  mentioned  in  the 
Mishna  should  be  interpreted  thus:  "  Estrange  f  them  from  thy- 
self as  a  stranger;  Get  thee  hence,  say  unto  him,  but  tell  him  not 
to  come  in  !  "  Further  Rabba  said :  It  is  unanimously  conceded 
that  the  carrying  of  idols  causes  (ritual)  uncleanness  and  hence 
it  is  compared  to  menstruation,  but  there  is  a  dissenting  opinion 
among  the  rabbis  concerning  a  stone  (used  as  a  pedestal  for  an 
idol  or  upon  which  a  woman  suffering  from  menstrsation  chanced 
to  sit)  beneath  which  there  were  utensils.  R.  Aqiba  holds  that 
idols  are  regarded  the  same  as  menstruating  women  and  the  ves- 
sels beneath  the  stone  become  defiled  (for  the  reason  that  the 
stone  is  the  basis  of  the  idol,  and  the  former  becomes  part  of 
the  idol,  and  hence  everything  beneath  it  becomes  defiled),  but 
the  rabbis  regard  an  idol  as  a  reptile,  i.e.,  as  a  reptile  lying  upon 
a  large  stone  (in  which  case  any  utensils  chancing  to  be  beneath 
the  stone  do  not  become  defiled).  This  decree  is  unanimously 
conceded. 

R.  Ahadbou  b.  Ami  asked:  What  about  an  idol  smaller  in 
size  than  an  olive  ?  R.  Joseph  objected  to  this  question :  What 
is  the  purpose  of  the  query  ?  Does  it  refer  to  the  prohibition  of 
idolatry  ?     Even  an  idol  the  size  of  a  fly,  like  the  idol  of  the 

*  The  Hebrew  term  used  for  "  filthy  thing"  in  the  passage  is  "  Davah,"  and  in 
Leviticus,  xx.  18,  Davah  is  translated,  "  a  woman  suflfering  from  her  separation  (men- 
struation)." 

f  The  word  "  Tizrom  "  (cast  them  away)  Rabba  holds  to  be  a  derivation  from  the 
word  "  Zar  "  (strange)  and  not  from  "  Zarah"  (cast  away). 

154 


TRACT    SABBATH.  155 

Ekroni'tes,  which  was  called  Zebub  *  (fly)  is  also  prohibited ;  for 
we  are  taught  it  is  written  in  the  passage  [Judges,  viii.  33] :  "  And 
they  made  themselves  Baal-berith  for  a  god  " ;  by  Baal-berith  is 
meant  the  Zebub  (fly)  idol  of  Ekron,  and  every  idolater  (at  that 
time)  made  an  image  of  his  idol  in  miniature  in  order  to  keep 
it  constantly  at  hand  and  to  be  able  at  any  time  to  take  it  out, 
embrace,  and  kiss  it ;  hence  there  is  no  question  as  to  size. 
Nay,  the  query  of  R.  Ahadbou  is  in  regard  to  causing  defile- 
ment ?  Either  it  is  regarded  as  a  reptile  and  defiles,  even  if  only 
of  the  size  of  a  lentil,  or  it  is  considered  as  a  corpse  and  causes 
defilement  if  it  is  the  size  of  an  olive.  (A  part  of  a  corpse  the 
size  of  an  olive  causes  the  person  touching  it  to  become  defiled.) 
Answered  R.  I  via,  and  according  to  others  Rabba  b.  Ulla: 
"  Come  and  hear  the  following  Boraitha:  '  No  defilement  is 
caused  by  idols  smaller  than  olives,  for  it  is  written  [II  Kings, 
xxiii.  6]:  "  And  cast  its  powder  upon  the  graves  of  the  children 
of  the  people."  '  "  (The  adduction  is)  that  as  a  corpse  cannot 
cause  defilement  by  a  part  less  than  the  size  of  an  olive,  the 
same  is  the  case  with  idols,  which  are  regarded  as  corpses. 

MISHNA  //.  :  (R.  Aqiba  says  again  :)  Whence  the  adduction 
that  a  ship,  though  a  wooden  vessel,  is  not  subject  to  defile- 
ment ?  From  the  passage  [Prov.  xxx.  19]:  "  The  way  of  a  ship 
is  in  the  heart  of  the  sea." 

GEMARA :  It  is  certain  f  that  R.  Aqiba  intends  to  convey 
to  us  that  the  reason  the  passage  cited  in  the  above  Mishna 
informs  us  of  a  fact  known  to  all  is  because  the  sense  is  to  be 
construed  thus:  In  the  same  manner  as  the  sea  is  not  subject 
to  defilement,  so  also  a  ship  can  never  become  defiled. 

There  is  a  Boraitha:  Ilananyah  said:  We  make  the  adduc- 
tion from  a  sack  (which  is  subject  to  defilement)  that  everything 
which  can  be  carried  after  the  manner  of  a  sack,  sometimes  full 
and  at  other  times  empty,  is  subject  to  defilement,  except  a 
ship,  which  cannot  be  carried  at  all,  full  or  empty.  What  are 
the  points  of  difference  in  the  two  adductions  (of  R.  Aqiba  and 
Hananyah)  ?  They  are  concerning  a  small  (river)  boat.  One 
holds  that  all  boats  (ships)  must  be  regarded  as  the  sea  itself 
(hence  not  subject  to  defilement),  while  the  other  is  of  the  opinion 
that  a  small  (river)  boat  must  be  regarded  as  a  sack  because  it  is 

*See  II  Kings,  i.  2. 

f  The  term  "it  is  certain  "  (peshit.ih)  is  generally  used  by  the  Gemara  in  the  sense 
of  the  question,  "  Is  it  not  self-evident  ?"  In  the  above  case,  however,  it  is  inte.ided 
for  an  explanation  of  the  reason  for  R.  Aqiba's  adduction.     See  Rashi. 


156  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

carried  to  the  place  whence  it  is  launched  and  hence  is  subject 
to  defilement;  as  R.  Hanina  b.  Aqa'bbia  said:  Why  did  the 
rabbis  say  that  a  small  (river)  boat  is  subject  to  defilement  ? 
Because  it  is  usually  loaded  in  the  dry  dock  and  then  carried  into 
the  river. 

Rabbi  Johanan  in  the  name  of  Rabbi  said:  "  One  should  not 
absent  himself  from  the  college  even  for  one  hour.  Behold,  this 
teaching  (concerning  a  river  boat)  has  been  taught  in  the  schools 
for  many  years  and  no  one  knew  the  reason  for  it  until  R.  Hanina 
b.  Aqa'bbia  came  and  explained  it." 

R,  Jonathan  said :  One  should  never  absent  himself  from  the 
house  of  learning  or  abstain  from  learning  the  law,  even  when 
at  the  point  of  death,  for  it  is  written  [Num.  xix.  14]:  "  This 
is  the  law,  when  a  man  dieth  in  his  tent  "  ;  {i.e.)  even  at  the  point 
of  death  man  must  occupy  himself  with  the  study  of  the  law. 
Resh  Lakish,  however,  adduces  from  the  same  verse  that  one  does 
not  retain  (in  memory)  the  law,  unless  he  is  ready  to  die  for  it. 

MISHNA ///. :  (R.  Aqiba  said  :)  Whence  do  we  adduce  that 
in  a  patch  of  ground  six  spans  long  by  six  spans  wide  five  different 
kinds  of  seed  may  be  planted — one  kind  each  in  each  of  the  four 
corners  and  one  in  the  centre  of  the  patch  ?  From  the  passage 
[Isaiah,  Ixi.  11]:  "  For  as  the  earth  bringeth  forth  her  growth, 
and  as  a  garden  causeth  what  is  sown  therein  to  spring  forth." 
(We  see  then)  it  is  not  written  "  as  a  garden  causeth  its  seed  to 
spring  forth,"  but  what  is sozvn  therein. 

GEMARA:  How  is  this  to  be  understood  from  that  passage  ? 
Said  R.  Jehudah :  The  passage  cited  in  the  above  Mishna  is  to  be 
thus  explained :  ' '  The  earth  britigetlifortJi  her  growth. "  "  Bring- 
eth forth  "  (which  is  in  the  singular)  can  be  counted  for  "  one  " 
(kind  of  seed).  Her  "  growth  "  (also  singular)  can  also  be  counted 
for  "one."  (Now  we  have  two.)  "What  is  grown  therein" 
(evidently  plural)  can  be  counted  for  two  more  (making  four), 
and  "  to  spring  forth  "  (in  the  singular  again)  can  be  counted  as 
one,  making  five  in  all ;  and  (as  far  as  the  six  spans  square  are 
concerned)  the  rabbis  are  quite  certain  (through  tradition)  that 
five  different  kinds  of  seed  in  a  patch  six  spans  square  do  not 
interfere  with  one  another.  But  whence  do  we  know  that  the 
assurance  of  the  rabbis  can  be  depended  upon  ?  Answered  R. 
Hyya  b.  Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan,  from  the  passage 
[Deut.  xix.  14]:  "  Thou  shalt  not  remove  the  landmark  of  thy 
neighbor,  which  they  of  old  time  have  set,"  which  is  to  be  ex- 
plained: "  Thou  shalt  not  go  beyond  what  is  limited  by  those 


TRACT    SABBATH.  157 

of  old."  But  what  have  those  of  old  limited?  Answered  R. 
Samuel  bar  Na'hmeni  in  the  name  of  R.  Jonathan :  "  It  is  written 
[Gen.  xxxvi.  20]  :  "  These  are  the  sons  of  Scir  the  Chorite,  who 
inhabited  the  land."  Only  they  inhabited  the  land  ?  Did  the 
rest  of  mankind  inhabit  heaven  ?  It  simply  means  to  state  that 
they  made  the  earth  inhabitable  by  their  knowledge  of  agriculture 
and  their  experience  as  to  what  ground  is  adapted  for  the  planting 
of  olive  trees,  vines,  date  trees,  etc. 

R.  Assi  said:  "The  teaching  of  R.  Aqiba  in  the  Mishna 
refers  to  a  patch  of  ground  six  spans  square,  excluding  the 
corners." 

Rabh  said:  "The  above  Mishna  has  reference  only  to  an 
isolated  patch  (or  furrow)  of  ground,  but  in  a  furrow  surrounded 
by  others  one  can  not  sow  five  kinds  of  grain,  (as  it  is  necessary 
to  have  a  space  of  three  spans  dividing  one  kind  from  the  other). 
Are  there  not  corners,  however,  (to  the  furrow)  ?"  The  school 
of  Rabh  explained,  in  the  name  of  Rabh,  that  reference  is  made 
to  furrows  into  the  corners  of  which  grain  had  been  sown. 

Samuel,  however,  said,  even  in  a  furrow  surrounded  by  other 
furrows.  But  will  not  the  seeds  interfere  one  with  another  ? 
Samuel  refers  to  furrows  which  are  planted  alternately  from 
north  to  east  and  from  south  to  west.* 

MISHNA  IV.  \  (R.  Aqiba  says  again):  Whence  the  adduc- 
tion that  a  woman,  from  whom  seed  of  copulation  f  escapes  only 
on  the  third  day  (after  lying  with  her  husband),  is  unclean  ? 
From  the  passage  [Exodus,  xix.  15]:  "  And  he  said  unto  the 
people.  Be  ready  against  the  third  day.  Approach  not  unto  a 
woman."  Whence  the  adduction  that  a  child  may  be  bathed 
on  the  third  day  of  its  circumcision,  even  if  that  day  fall  on  a 
Sabbath  ?  From  the  passage  [Gen.  xxxiv.  25]:  "  And  it  came 
to  pass  on  the  third  day,  when  they  were  sore."  Whence  the 
adduction  that  a  string  of  crimson  wool  must  be  tied  on  the  head 
of  the  goat  that  was  to  be  sent  away  ?|  From  the  passage 
[Isaiah,  i.  18]:  "  Though  they  should  be  red  like  crimson,  they 
shall  become  (white)  like  wool."  Whence  do  we  adduce  that 
anointing  one's  self  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  is  equal  to  drink- 
ing ?     Although  no  positive  proof  is  apparent,  still  a  reference 

*  Rashi  declares  this  to  be  the  best  possible  explanation  of  Samuel's  opinion,  and 
says  that  many  others  offered  many  different  explanations,  none  of  which  are  compre 
hensible. 

\  See  Leviticus,  xv.  16,  17,  18,  and  ibid.  xxii.  4. 

\  See  Lev.  xvi.  21. 


158  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

can  be  adduced  from  the  passage  [Psalms,  cix.  i8]:  "And  it 
Cometh  like  water  on  his  body  and  oil  into  his  bones." 

GEMARA:  The  first  part  of  the  Mishna  (treating  of  a 
woman)  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Elazar 
b.  Azaryah,  who  declares  her  (the  woman)  clean  in  that  case; 
the  second  part  of  the  Mishna,  however,  (treating  of  bathing  on 
the  third  day  after  circumcision)  is  in  direct  accord  with  his  own 
words  (as  will  be  seen  in  Chapter  XIX.).  Therefore  some  rabbis 
claim  that  the  first  part  of  the  Mishna  reads  clean  instead  of 
unclean,  i.e.,  that  the  whole  Mishna  is  according  to  the  opinion 
of  R.  Elazar  b.  Azaryah,  but  other  rabbis  claim  that  the  first 
part  of  the  Mishna  is  according  to  the  opinion  of  other  Tanaim, 
who  differ  with  Elazar  b.  Azaryah  (and  the  word  unclean  is 
correct). 

"And  they  shall  be  ready  against  the  third  day''  [Ex.  xix. 
ii].  R.  Ada  b.  Ahbha  said:  "  Moses  went  up  (to  the  Mount 
Sinai)  at  daybreak,  and  descended  the  following  break  of  day." 
He  went  up  at  break  of  day,  as  it  is  written  [Ex.  xxxiv.  4]: 
"  And  Moses  rose  up  early  in  the  morning  and  went  up  unto 
Mount  Sinai. "  He  descended  on  the  following  daybreak,  as  it  is 
written  [ibid.  xix.  24] :  "  Go,  get  thee  down,  and  then  shalt  thou 
come  up,  thou,  and  Aaron  with  thee. ' '  We  see  that  the  Scripture 
compares  the  descending  to  the  ascending,  and  as  the  ascending 
was  early  in  the  morning,  so  was  also  the  descending  early  in  the 
morning. 

The  rabbis  taught :  The  decalogue  was  given  to  Israel  on  the 
sixth  day  of  the  (third)  month,  but  R.  Jossi  said  on  the  seventh 
day. 

Said  Rabba:  All  agree  that  on  the  first  day  of  the  (third) 
month  the  Israelites  arrived  at  the  wilderness  of  Sinai.  It  is 
adduced  from  the  analogy  of  the  word  "  this  "  ;  |^Ex.  xix.  l]  "  on 
this  day  they  arrived  at  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,"  and  [Ex.  xii.  2] 
"  this  month  to  be  to  you  the  first  of  months."  As  in  the 
latter  instance  the  "  this  "  referred  to  the  first,  so  does  it  also  in 
the  former;  furthermore  (he  said),  all  agree  that  the  law  was 
given  to  Israel  on  a  Sabbath;  this  is  to  be  adduced  from  the 
analogy  of  the  word  "remember"  [Ex.  xx.  8]:  *'  Remember 
the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy  "  ;  and  [ibid.  iii.  3]:  "  Remember 
this  day  on  which  ye  came  out  from  Egypt."  As  in  the  latter 
instance  the  very  day  of  their  coming  out  of  Egypt  is  referred 
to,  so  is  it  also  in  the  former  instance.  Where  the  rabbis  do 
differ  is  what  day  was  the  first  of  the  month.     R.  Jossi  holds 


TRACT    SABBATH.  159 

that  the  first  of  the  month  was  set  on  the  first  of  the  week,  and 
on  that  day  no  commandments  were  given,  because  the  children 
of  Israel  were  tired  from  their  long  journey.  On  the  second  day 
(of  the  week)  the  Lord  said  to  them:  "  Ye  shall  be  unto  me  a 
kingdom  of  priests"  [Ex.  xix.  i].  On  the  third  of  the  week 
he  commanded  them  to  keep  away  from  the  mountain.  On  the 
fourth  to  separate  themselves  from  their  wives.  The  rabbis, 
however,  hold  that  the  first  of  the  month  was  set  on  the  second 
of  the  week;  that  on  that  day  nothing  was  commanded  the 
Israelites,  they  being  tired;  on  the  third  the  cited  passage  [Ex. 
xix.  i]  was  said ;  on  the  fourth  day  they  were  to  keep  away 
from  the  mountain,  and  on  the  fifth  to  separate  themselves  from 
their  wives. 

An  objection  was  raised:  It  is  written  [Ex.  xix.  10]:  "  Go 
unto  the  people,  and  sanctify  them  to-day  and  to-morrow."  Is 
this  not  contradictory  to  the  statement  of  R.  Jossi  (in  whose 
opinion  the  sanctification  lasted  three  days)  ?  R.  Jossi  may 
explain  this  thus:  "  Moses  added  one  day  upon  his  own  au- 
thority," as  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  "  Three  things  were 
done  by  Moses  upon  his  own  authority,  and  the  Holy  One, 
blessed  be  He,  agreed  thereto.  They  are :  He  added  one  day 
(to  the  period  of  sanctification),  he  separated  himself  from  a 
woman,  and  he  broke  the  tablets  into  pieces."  "  He  added  one 
day  upon  his  own  authority."  What  was  his  object  ?  The  Lord 
said  unto  him:  "  To-day  and  to-morrow,"  and  he  construed  the 
words  as  follows:  "  To-day  must  be  equal  (in  duration)  to  to- 
morrow; as  to-morrow  includes  the  night,  so  must  to-day;  the 
night,  however,  having  already  passed,  another  day  must  be  added 
in  order  to  make  up  for  the  lost  night."  Whence  do  we  know 
that  the  Lord  agreed  to  this  ?  Because  the  Shekhina  did  not 
appear  on  Mount  Sinai  until  the  Sabbath  morn.  What  was  the 
object  of  Moses  in  separating  himself  from  a  woman  ?  He  applied 
the  order  given  the  Israelites  (to  separate  themselves  from  their 
wives)  to  himself  in  a  so  much  larger  degree  {i.e.^  the  order  having 
been  issued  to  the  Israelites  for  the  reason  that  they  would 
shortly  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  it  would  be  so  much  more 
proper  for  him,  who  frequently  was  spoken  to  by  the  Lord,  to 
separate  himself  entirely  from  a  woman).  And  whence  do  we 
know  that  the  Lord  agreed  to  this  also  ?  It  is  written  [Deut. 
v.  27  and  28]:  "  Go,  say  to  them,  Return  you  unto  your  tents. 
But  as  for  thee,  remain  thou  here  by  me."  And  what  was  his 
object  in  breaking  the  tablets  ?    He  thought :  ' '  As  concerning  the 


i6o  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

Passover  sacrifice,  which  is  only  one  of  the  six  hundred  and  thir- 
teen commandments,  it  is  written  [Ex.  xii.  43] :  '  No  stranger 
shall  eat  thereof,*  how  can  I  give  the  tablets,  which  contain  all 
the  commandments,  to  the  children  of  Israel,  who  are  now  all 
renegades?"  And  whence  do  we  know  that  the  Holy  One, 
blessed  be  He,  agreed  even  to  this  ?  It  is  written  [Ex.  xxxiv. 
i] :  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Hew  thyself  two  tables 
of  stone  like  unto  the  first;  and  I  will  write  upon  these  tables 
the  words  which  were  on  the  first  tables  which  thou  didst  break." 
Said  Resh  Lakish:  "'Which  thou  didst  break'  really  means, 
'  which  thou  didst  break  rightfully.'  " 

Another  objection  was  raised:  It  is  written  [Ex.  .xix.  11]: 
"  And  they  shall  be  ready  against  the  third  day."  According 
to  R.  Jossi  it  should  be  the  fourth  day.  This  is  no  objection ! 
as  it  is  said  above  that  Moses  added  another  day  upon  his  own 
authority.  Come  and  hear  another  objection:  "The  sixth 
means  the  sixth  of  the  week  and  of  the  month."  Is  this  not 
contradictory  to  the  statement  of  the  rabbis,  who  say:  "The 
first  of  the  month  was  the  second  day  of  the  week  ?"  Yea,  (it 
may  be  that)  this  Boraitha  holds  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Jossi. 

Come  and  hear:  On  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  of 
Nissan,  during  which  (month)  the  Israelites  went  out  of  Egypt, 
they  killed  the  Passover  sacrifice  and  on  the  fifteenth  day  they 
went  out.  On  the  night  before  that  the  first-born  of  the  Egyp- 
tians were  beaten.  That  day  (the  fifteenth)  was  the  fifth  of  the 
week.  Now,  if  the  fifteenth  of  Nissan  was  the  fifth  of  the  week, 
we  must  certainly  say  that  the  first  of  the  next  month  (lar)  was 
Sabbath  and  the  first  day  of  the  following  month  (Sivan)  was  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  Is  this  not  contradictory  to  the  statement 
of  the  rabbis,  that  the  first  day  of  the  month  was  the  second  day 
of  the  week  ?  The  rabbis  might  have  assumed  that  the  month  of 
lar  was  an  intercalary  month. 

Said  R.  Habibi  of  'Huzunah  to  R.  Ashi:  Come  and  hear: 
It  is  written  [Ex.  xl.  17]:  "And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  first 
month  in  the  second  year,  on  the  first  of  the  month,  that  the 
tabernacle  was  reared  up,"  and  a  Boraitha  teaches  that  this  day 
was  crowned  tenfold,  viz.:  "  That  day  was  the  first  of  the  six 
days  of  the  creation ;  the  first  of  the  days  on  which  the  first 
prince  presented  his  offering  before  the  altar;  the  first  of  the 
days  on  which  the  priests  (Aaron  and  sons)  did  their  work  in 
the  sanctuary;  the  first  day  on  which  the  children  of  Israel 
brought  their  sacrifices  into  the  tabernacle ;  the  first  of  the  days 


TRACT    SABBATH.  i6i 

on  which  the  heavenly  fire  descended  upon  the  altar;  the  first  of 
the  days  on  which  the  priests  were  permitted  to  eat  the  sacrifices 
in  the  tabernacle;  the  first  of  the  days  on  which  the  Shekhina 
appeared  in  the  tabernacle;  the  first  day  on  which  Aaron  the 
High  Priest  blessed  the  Israelites  in  the  tabernacle;  the  first 
of  the  days  on  which  sacrifices  were  no  more  permitted  to  be 
brought  on  the  high  places  outside  of  the  tabernacle,  and  the 
first  day  of  the  first  of  the  months."  Now,  if  the  first  day  of 
this  year  was  the  first  day  of  the  week,  we  must  say  the  first  of 
Nissan  of  the  preceding  year  fell  on  the  fourth  day  of  the  week, 
because  we  have  learned  in  another  Boraitha:  "  Anonymous 
teachers  say  that  there  can  be  not  more  than  four  days'  differ- 
ence between  one  New  Year's  day  and  another."  If  a  leap  year 
intervened,  then  there  may  be  a  difference  of  five  days.  Is  this 
not  contradictory  to  the  opinion  of  both  the  rabbis  and  R.  Jossi  ? 
According  to  R.  Jossi  there  were  seven  short  months  (of  twenty- 
nine  days)  in  that  year,  but  according  to  the  rabbis  there  were 
eight  such  months,  (consequently  the  difference  from  the  last 
year  was  only  in  two  days,)  as  this  year  was  an  extraordinary 
one.  (And  the  first  day  of  the  month  lar  of  the  last  year  was 
on  Friday.) 

Another  objection  was  raised:  We  have  learned  in  the  Tract 
Seder  Aulim  that  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  of  Nissan, 
during  which  (month)  the  Israelites  went  out  of  Egypt,  they 
killed  the  Passover  sacrifice;  on  the  fifteenth  they  went  out,  and 
that  day  was  Friday.  Now,  if  the  first  of  the  month  of  Nissan 
of  that  year  was  Friday,  we  must  say  that  the  first  day  of  the 
following  (lar)  month  was  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  and 
the  first  of  the  succeeding  month  (Sivan)  was  on  Monday.  Is 
this  not  contradictory  with  R.  Jossi  ?  R.  Jossi  will  then  say 
that  this  Boraitha  is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  the 
rabbis. 

Come  and  hear  another  objection:  R,  Jossi  says:  "  On  the 
second  day  Moses  went  up  on  the  Mount  Sinai  and  came  back. 
The  same  he  did  on  the  third  day,  but  on  the  fourth  day,  when 
he  came  back,  he  remained."  Came  back  and  remained  .' 
Whence  did  he  come  back — it  does  not  say  that  he  went  up  at 
all  ?  Say,  then,  on  the  fourth  day  he  went  up,  came  back,  and 
remained.  On  the  fifth  he  built  an  altar  and  offered  a  sacrifice. 
On  the  sixth  he  had  no  time.  Shall  we  assume  that  he  had  no 
time  because  on  that  day  the  Israelites  received  the  Torah  ? 
(If  we  say  that  the  second  refers  to  the  second  day  of  the  week, 

VOL.    I.  —  II 


i62  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

it  must  be  a  fact  that  the  Torah  was  given  on  Friday,  and  would 
this  not  be  a  contradiction  to  his  [R.  Jossi's]  own  opinion  ?) 
Nay;  he  had  no  time  because  the  Sabbath  was  at  hand. 

A  Galilean  lectured  in  the  presence  of  R.  Hisda:  Praised  be 
the  merciful  God,  who  gave  a  triple  law  (the  Pentateuch,  Proph- 
ets, and  Hagiographa)  to  a  triple  people  (Kahanites,  Levites, 
and  Israelites)  through  a  man  who  was  the  third  child  of  his 
parents  (Miriam,  Aaron,  and  Moses),  on  the  third  day  of  sancti- 
fication  and  in  the  third  month.  We  see  from  this  that  the 
Galilean  held  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  the  rabbis. 

It  is  written  [Ex.  xix.  17]:  "  And  they  placed  themselves  at 
the  foot  of  the  mount."  Said  R.  Abhdimi  b.  Hama  b.  Hassa: 
"  It  appears  from  this  passage  that  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be 
He,  inclined  the  mountain  toward  the  children  of  Israel  and  gave 
them  the  choice  of  either  accepting  the  Torah  or  being  buried 
right  under  the  mountain."  Said  R.  Aha  b.  Jacob:  "  This 
would  accord  us  the  right  to  protest  against  any  punishment 
inflicted  upon  us  for  violating  the  law.  (For  we  were  compelled 
to  accept  it.)"  Said  Rabha:  Although  (at  that  time  they  were 
compelled  to  accept  it),  at  the  time  of  Ahasuerus  (King  of  Persia) 
they  accepted  it  voluntarily.  For  it  is  written  [Esther,  ix.  27]: 
"  The  Jews  confirmed  it  as  a  duty,  and  took  upon  themselves 
and  upon  their  seed."  And  it  is  to  be  explained:  "  They  took 
upon  themselves  voluntarily  what  at  one  time  they  were  com- 
pelled to  accept."  R.  Simai  lectured:  "  At  that  time,  when 
Israel  answered  to  the  information  of  Moses,  '  We  will  do  and 
we  will  obey,'  six  hundred  thousand  angels  had  furnished  to 
every  one  of  Israel  two  crowns :  one  for  the  answer  *  We  will 
do,'  and  one  for  the  answer  '  We  will  obey.'  Thereafter  when 
Israel  sinned  (with  the  Golden  Calf)  twelve  hundred  thousand 
destroying  angels  descended  and  took  them  away;  as  it  is  written 
[Exodus,  xxxiii.  6]:  '  The  children  of  Israel  then  stripped  them- 
selves of  their  ornaments  (they  wore)  from  (the  time  they  were 
at)  Mount  Horeb.'  "  Said  R.  Hami  b.  R.  Hanina:  "  For  in  the 
same  passage  it  may  be  deduced  that  in  the  same  place  where 
they  were  furnished  they  were  taken  away  from  them."  Said 
R.  Johanan :  All  of  them  were  given  as  a  reward  to  Moses,  as 
immediately  after  the  verse  cited  it  is  written  :  "  And  Moses  took 
the  tent,"  etc.  Said  Resh  Lakish:  We  hope,  however,  that  the 
Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  will  return  them  to  us,  as  it  is  written 
[Isaiah,  xxxv.  10}:  "  And  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord  shall  return, 
and  come  to  Zion  with  song,  with  everlasting  joy  upon  their 


TRACT   SABBATH.  163 

head."  The  expression  everlasting  means  that  it  was  already 
upon  their  heads  at  the  time  of  reception  of  the  Torah. 

R.  Elazar  said  :  At  the  time  the  Israelites  said  "  We  will  do  " 
and  afterward  "  We  will  obey  "  a  heavenly  voice  (Bath-kol)  was 
heard,  which  said  unto  them  :  "  Who  unfolded  unto  my  children 
this  mystery  known  only  to  the  angels?"  For  it  is  wiitten 
[Psalms,  ciii.  20]:  "  Bless  the  Lord,  ye  his  angels,  mighty  in 
strength,  that  execute  his  word,  hearkening  unto  the  voice  of  his 
word,"  and  from  this  we  see  that  only  angels  can  execute  first 
and  then  obey. 

A  Sadducee  once  noticed  Rabha  studying  and  observed  that 
he  in  his  absent-mindedness  held  his  (Rabha's)  finger  underneath 
liis  knee  and  pressed  it  so  liard  that  blood  spurted  from  the 
finger.  Said  the  Sadducee*  to  him:  "Impetuous  people, 
whose  mouths  precede  your  ears!  Ye  are  still  of  the  same 
vehemence!  Ye  must  first  hear  the  Torah  before  you  accept 
it  and  not  accept  without  knowing  its  prescriptions!"  An- 
swered Rabha:  We  who  are  upright  men  trusted  Him,  as  it  is 
said  of  us  [Proverbs,  xi.  3]:  "  The  integrity  of  the  upright  guid- 
eth  them,"  but  to  those  men  who  are  continually  fault-finding 
the  latter  part  of  the  same  verse  [ibid.,  ibid.]  can  be  applied,  viz. : 
"  But  the  cunning  of  the  treacherous  destroyeth  them." 

R.  Samuel  b.  Na'hrneni  in  the  name  of  R.  Jonathan  said: 
It  is  written  [Solomon's  Song,  iv.  9]:  '  Thou  hast  ravished  my 
heart,  O  my  sister,  (my)  bride!  thou  hast  ravished  my  heart  with 
one  of  thy  eyes."  This  means:  When  thou  didst  but  receive 
the  Torah,  it  was  with  one  of  thy  eyes.  When  thou  wilt  obey 
it,  it  will  be  with  both  of  thy  eyes. 

R.  Johanan  said:  It  is  written  [Psalms,  Ixviii.  12]:  "The 
Lord  gave  (happy)  tidings ;  they  are  published  by  female  messen- 
gers, a  numerous  host."  This  implies  that  every  word  emanat- 
ing from  the  mighty  God  was  heralded  in  seventy  languages. 
The  school  of  R.  Ishmael,  however,  (adduced  the  same  from 
another  passage):  It  is  written  [Jeremiah,  xxiii.  29]:  "  Is  not 
thus  my  word  like  the  fire  ?  saith  the  Lord,  and  like  a  hammer 
that  shivereth  the  rock  ?  "  As  the  hammer  that  strikes  emits  a 
multitude  of  sparks,  so  is  every  word  emanating  from  the  Holy 
One,  blessed  be  He,  heralded  in  seventy  different  languages. 

*  It  is  not  meant  a  real  Sadducee,  as  they  did  not  yet  exist  In  Rabha's  time, 
but  one  of  the  other  sects  which  opposed  the  oral  law;  and  the  name  may  be  here  a 
correction  of  the  censor  instead  of  Akum,  as  tliere  are  many  such  corrections  of  the 
censor.     It  may  also  be  another  sect  for  which  the  name  Sadducee  was  borrowed. 


i64  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

R.  Hananel  b.  Papa  said:  It  is  written  [Proverbs,  viii.  6]: 
"  Hear!  for  of  noble  things  will  I  speak."  Why  are  the  words 
of  the  Torah  compared  to  a  noble  ?  To  inform  us  that  inas- 
much as  a  noble  has  in  his  power  the  disposal  over  life  and  death, 
so  have  also  the  words  of  the  Torah.  This  is  similar  to  what 
Rabha  said:  To  those  who  walk  in  the  right  ways  of  the  law,  it 
is  an  elixir  of  life,  but  to  those  who  pursue  not  the  right  way, 
it  is  the  poison  of  death. 

R.  Jehoshua  b.  Levi  said:  It  is  written  [Solomon's  Song,  i. 
12] :  "A  bundle  of  myrrh  is  my  friend  unto  mc,  that  resteth  on 
my  bosom."  Said  the  Congregation  of  Israel:  "Lord  of  the 
Universe !  Although  my  friend  chastiseth  -  me,  still  he  resteth 
on  my  bosom  !  " 

The  same  rabbi  said:  "  It  is  written  [Solomon's  Song,  v.  13]: 
His  cheeks  are  as  a  bed  of  spices,  as  turrets  of  sweet  perfumes." 
Every  word  emanating  from  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  fills 
the  whole  world  with  the  aroma  of  spices.  If  the  world  was 
filled  with  the  aroma  arising  from  the  first  word,  where  could 
the  second  word  go  ?  The  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  sent  forth 
a  wind  from  His  store,  which  cleared  off  the  aroma  of  each 
word,  as  it  is  written  [ibid.]:  "  His  lips  like  lilies,  dropping  with 
fluid  myrrh."  Do  not  read  Shoshanim  (lilies)  but  Sheshonim 
(learned  men).  The  same  said  again  that;  from  each  v/ord  which 
came  from  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  the  soul  of  Israel  was 
going  out,  as  it  is  written  [ibid.,  ibid.  6]:  "  My  soul  had  failed 
me  while  he  was  speaking."  But  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He, 
has  let  down  the  dew  with  which  He  will  in  the  future  make  the 
resurrection  and  bring  them  to  life;  as  it  is  written  [Psalms, 
Ixviii.  10]:  "  Rain  of  beneficence  didst  thou  pour  down,  O 
God!" 

He  also  said :  When  Moses  ascended  into  Heaven,  said  the 
angels  before  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  "  Lord  of  the  Uni- 
verse !     What  has  one  born  of  a  woman  to  do  among  us  ? " 

The  Lord  answered:  "  He  came  to  receive  the  Torah." 
Said  the  angels  again:  "  Wouldst  Thou  give  a  precious  thing 
that  Thou  hast  preserved  since  nine  hundred  and  seventy-four 
generations  before  the  creation  of  the  world  to  a  being  of  flesh 
and  blood  ?  (It  is  written  [Psalms,  viii.  5]):  What  is  the  mortal, 
that  thou  rememberest  him  ?  and  the  son  of  man,  that  thou 
thinkest  of  him?"     Said  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,   unto 

*  The  Hebrew  term  for  bundle  is  Tzror,  and  for  oppressor  is  Tzoror;  hence  R. 
Johanan  interprets  Tzror  as  if  it  were  Tzoror. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  165 

Moses:  "  Give  thou  them  an  answer!  "  Answered  Moses  before 
the  Lord :  "  Lord  of  the  Universe!  What  is  written  in  the  law, 
which  Thou  gavest  unto  me  ?"  [Ex.  xx.  2].  "  I  am  the  Lord, 
thy  God,  who  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt." 
Moses  then  said  to  the  angels:  Were  ye  in  Egypt  ?  Have  ye 
served  Pharaoh  ?  Of  what  use  can  the  Torah  be  unto  you  ? 
Further,  what  is  written  in  the  Torah  [ibid.  3] :  "  Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  before  me."  Are  ye  among  the  nations  that 
worship  idols  ?  And  furthermore,  what  is  written  in  the  Torah  ? 
[ibid.  8]:  "  Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy."  Do 
ye  any  labor  on  the  week-days  ?  [Ibid.  7] :  "  Thou  shalt  not  take 
the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain."  Are  ye  merchants,  that 
ye  must  swear  ?  [Ibid,  13]:"  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother.  ' 
Have  ye  fathers  and  mothers  to  honor?  [Ibid.  12]:  "  Thou  shalt 
not  kill,"  etc.  Is  there  any  jealousy  among  you  ?  Have  ye  any 
evil  intent  ? 

Then  the  angels  confessed  and  praised  the  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He,  as  it  is  written  [Psalms,  viii.  10]:  "  O  Eternal  One,  our 
Lord,  how  excellent  is  thy  name  on  all  the  earth!"  but  the 
ending  of  the  verse  [ibid.  2],  "  Thou  who  hast  set  thy  majesty 
above  the  heavens,"  is  not  cited  in  this  verse.  Then  every  one 
of  the  angels  befriended  Moses  and  each  of  them  disclosed  some 
mystery  to  him,  as  it  is  written  [Psalms,  Ixviii.  19] :  "  Thou  didst 
ascend  on  high,  lead  away  captives,  receive  gifts  among  men," 
which  means  that  because  at  first  the  angels  called  Moses  one 
born  of  a  woman  (man),  they  at  the  close  gave  him  gifts,  and 
even  the  Angel  of  Death  disclosed  a  mystery  to  him,  as  it  is 
written  [Num.  xvii.  12  and  13]:  "  And  he  put  on  the  incense, 
and  made  an  atonement  for  the  people.  And  he  stood  between 
the  dead  and  the  living."  Now  if  the  Angel  of  Death  had  not 
disclosed  unto  Moses  this  mystery,  how  could  he  have  imparted 
it  to  Aaron  ? 

Said  R.  Jehoshua  b.  Levi  again :  When  Moses  descended 
from  Heaven,  Satan  came  before  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He, 
and  said:  "Lord  of  the  universe!  Where  is  the  Torah?" 
And  the  Lord  answered :  "  I  have  given  it  to  the  earth. ' '  Satan 
descended  to  earth  and  said  to  it:  "  Where  is  the  Torah?" 
And  the  earth  answered  [Job,  xxviii.  23]:  "  God  (alone)  under- 
standeth  her  way,  and  he  knoweth  her  place."  Satan  then  went 
to  the  sea,  and  the  sea  said:  "  She  is  not  with  me."  He  then 
went  to  the  deep,  and  the  deep  answered:  "  Not  in  me  is  she," 
as  it   is  written  [ibid.  14]:  "  The  deep  saith,  Not  in  me  is  she; 


i66  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

and  the  sea  saith,  She  is  not  with  me."  [Ibid.  22] :  "  Perdition 
and  death  say:  With  our  ears  have  we  heard  a  report  of  her." 
Satan  then  ascended  before  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  and 
said:  "  Lord  of  the  Universe!  I  have  looked  for  the  Torah  on 
the  whole  earth  and  could  not  find  it."  Then  said  the  Lord 
unto  him:  "  Go  unto  the  son  of  Amram."  And  Satan  went  to 
Moses  and  said  to  him:  "  Where  is  the  Torah  which  the  Holy 
One,  blessed  be  He,  gave  unto  thee  ?"  And  Moses  answered  : 
"  Who  am  I,  that  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  should  give  me 
the  Torah?"  Said  the  Lord  unto  Moses:  "Moses,  art  thou 
a  liar  ?  "  Said  Moses  before  the  Lord:  "  Lord  of  the  Universe! 
Shall  I  claim  that  Thou  hast  given  unto  me  a  precious  thing 
which  Thou  didst  fondle  every  day?"  Said  the  Holy  One, 
blessed  be  He,  unto  Moses:  "  Because  thou  hast  humbled  thy- 
self, the  Torah  shall  bear  thy  name,"  as  it  is  written  [Malachi, 
iii.  22] :  "  Remember  ye  the  law  of  Moses  my  servant." 

The  same  rabbi  said  again:  When  Moses  ascended  unto 
Heaven  (and  he  was  silent),  the  Lord  said  unto  him:  "  Moses, 
is  there  no  peace  in  thy  city  ?  "  And  Moses  answered:  "  Is  it 
then  proper  that  a  slave  should  salute  his  Master  ?"  Said  the 
Lord:  "Still  thou  shouldst  have  wished  me  well."  Then  said 
Moses  before  the  Lord  [Numbers,  xiv.  17]:  "  And  now,  I  beseech 
thee,  let  the  greatness  of  the  power  of  the  Lord  be  made  mani- 
fest as  thou  hast  spoken." 

"A  string  of  crimson  wool,''  etc.  Did  not  the  passage  say 
(Kashanim)  *  "  like  years  "  and  not  like  crimson,  for  were  it  like 
crimson  it  would  read  Kashani  ?  Said  R.  Itz'hak:  "  The  pas- 
sage is  thus  to  be  explained:  The  Lord  said  unto  Israel:  If  your 
sins  all  lie  before  me  as  the  years  that  have  passed  since  the 
creation,  they  shall  nevertheless  become  white  as  snow." 

Rabha  lectured:  It  is  written  [Isaiah,  i.  18]:  "  Go  now,t  and 
let  us  reason  together,  said  the  Lord."  It  should  not  read  "  go 
now  "  but  "  come  now,"  and  not  "  saith  the  Lord  "  but  "  said 
the  Lord."  The  passage  should  be  explained  :  In  the  future  the 
Lord  will  say  unto  Israel:  Go  to  your  ancestors  and  they  shall 
rebuke  you ;  and  Israel  will  say  before  the  Lord :  Lord  of  the 

*  Shanah  in  Hebrew  means  year  (SJia/iim,  plural,  years).  Shany  means  crimson, 
but  the  latter  is  used  only  once  (Prov.  xxxi.  21)  in  plural;  the  former,  however,  is 
generally  used  in  plural,  as,  for  many  years.  As  here  it  is  in  plural  i  Kcshatiim')  he 
declares  it  like  years. 

f  In  Isaac  Leeser's  translation  of  the  Bible,  which  we  use  in  Biblical  citations, 
this  passage  is  rendered  "  Come  now,"  but  the  literal  translation  is  "Go  now." 


TRACT    SABBATH.  167 

Universe,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Shall  we  go  to  Abraham,  to 
whom  Thou  hast  said:  "  Know  of  a  surety  that  thy  seed  shall 
be  a  stranger  in  a  land  which  is  not  theirs,  and  they  will  make 
them  serve,"  and  he  did  not  pray  for  us  ?  Shall  we  go  to  Isaac, 
who,  when  blessing  Esau,  said  [Gen.  xxvii.  40]:  "  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  that  when  thou  shalt  have  the  dominion  thou  canst 
break  his  yoke  from  off  thy  neck,"  and  he  also  did  not  pray  for 
us  ?  Shall  we  go  to  Jacob,  to  whom  Thou  didst  say  [Gen.  xlvi. 
4]:  "I  will  go  down  with  thee  into  Egypt,"  and  not  even  he 
prayed  for  us  ?  To  whom  shall  we  go  now  ?  Then  the  Lord 
will  say  unto  Israel:  "  Inasmuch  as  ye  have  attached  yourselves 
to  me,  though  your  sins  should  be  as  scarlet,  they  shall  become 
white  as  snow." 

Said  R.  Samuel  b.  Na'hmeni  in  the  name  of  R.  Jonathan: 
It  is  written  [Isaiah,  Ixiii.  16]:  "  For  Thou  art  our  Father;  for 
Abraham  knoweth  nothing  of  us,  and  Israel  recognizeth  us  not ; 
Thou,  O  Lord,  art  our  Father,  our  Redeemer  from  everlasting 
is  thy  name."  In  the  future  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  will 
say  to  Abraham:  "  Thy  children  have  sinned  before  me,"  and 
Abraham  will  answer:  "  Let  them  be  wiped  off  (the  face  of  the 
earth)  for  the  sake  of  the  holiness  of  Thy  name."  The  Holy 
One,  blessed  be  He,  will  then  say:  "  I  shall  tell  this  to  Jacob, 
who  had  trouble  in  rearing  his  own  children  ;  perhaps  he  will  pay 
for  the  present  generation."  The  Lord  said  to  Jacob:  "  Thy 
children  have  sinned  before  me,"  and  Jacob  gave  the  same  reply 
as  Abraham.  Then  said  the  Lord:  "  Not  with  the  aged  can 
feeling  be  found,  nor  with  the  young  wise  counsel."  The  Lord 
then  said  to  Isaac:  "Thy  children  have  sinned  before  me." 
Then  said  Isaac  before  the  Lord  :  ' '  Creator  of  the  universe  !  Thou 
sayest  my  children,  are  they  not  Thine  ?  When  they  answered 
before  Thee,  '  We  will  do,'  and  (then)  'obey,'  Thou  calledst 
them  '  My  son,  my  first-born,'  and  now  they  are  my  children 
and  not  Thine!  And  furthermore,  how  long  a  time  have  they 
sinned  before  Thee?  Let  us  see;  what  is  the  duration  of  a 
man's  life  ?  Only  seventy  years.  Take  off  the  twenty  years 
that  Thou  dost  not  punish  for  sin  and  only  fifty  remain.  Take 
off  the  nights  and  only  twenty-five  full  years  remain.  Deduct 
again  twelve  years  and  six  months  spent  in  praying,  eating,  and 
in  the  performance  of  other  necessities,  only  twelve  and  one-half 
years  remain.  If  Thou  wilt  bear  the  whole  it  is  well,  but  if  not 
let  me  bear  half  and  Thou  the  other  half.  If  Thou  wilt  say  that 
I  must  bear  the  whole,  did  I   not  sacrifice  myself  for  Thee?" 


i68  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Then  Israel  said  (unto  Isaac):  "  For  thou  (alone)  art  our  father." 
Said  Isaac  unto  them:  "  Instead  of  praising  me,  praise  ye  the 
Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,"  and  he  pointed  them  on  high  with 
his  finger.  "There  is  the  Lord!"  Then  they  lifted  up  their 
eyes  unto  Heaven  and  said :  Thou,  O  Lord,  art  our  Father,  our 
Redeemer  from  everlasting  is  Thy  name. 

R.  Hyya  b.  Aba  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan:  "  Jacob 
deserved  to  go  down  into  Egypt  in  iron  shackles  (because  that 
is  the  usual  way  of  going  into  exile),  but  his  merits  precluded 
such  a  thing,  as  it  is  v/ritten:  "  With  human  cords  I  ever  drew 
them  forward,  with  leading-strings  of  love;  and  I  was  to  them 
as  those  that  lift  off  the  yoke  from  their  jaws,  and  I  held  out 
unto  them  food  "  [Hosea,  xi.  4]. 

MISHNA  V. :  The  prescribed  quantity  for  wood  is  as  much 
as  sufifices  to  cook  an  (easily  boiled)  egg;  for  spices  as  much  as 
would  suffice  to  spice  such  an  egg — and  the  different  spices  are 
counted  together;  nut-shells,  pomegranate  peel,  isatis,  and 
cochineal,  as  much  as  suffices  to  dye  the  edge  of  a  small  piece 
of  cloth;  alum,  native  carbonate  of  soda,  Cimolia  chalk,  vege- 
table soap,  as  much  as  suffices  to  wash  the  edge  of  a  small  piece 
of  cloth.  R.  Jehudah  says  as  much  as  will  suffice  to  remove  a 
blood  stain. 

GEMARA :  Have  we  not  learned  this  already  ?  Reeds,  split, 
as  much  as  will  suflRce  to  cook  an  egg  ?  In  that  case  we  must 
assume  that  the  reeds  could  not  be  used  for  any  other  purpose, 
but  wood  which  can  be  put  to  a  multitude  of  uses,  as,  for  instance, 
to  make  the  handle  for  a  key,  (should  be  limited  to  a  smaller 
quantity).  He  comes  to  teach  us  that  the  same  quantity  also 
applies  in  this  case. 

"  Nut-shells,''  etc.  Is  this  not  a  contradiction  to  what  we 
have  learned  elsewhere,  that  dyes  may  not  be  carried  in  quan- 
tities sufficient  to  exhibit  a  sample  of  the  color  in  the  market  ? 
Said  R.  Na'hman  in  the  name  of  Rabba  b.  Abuhu :  "  Because 
one  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  make  dye  suflficient  only  for  a 
sample." 

"Native  carbo7iate,'"  etc.  A  Boraitha  in  addition  to  this 
states,  that  coming  from  Alexandria  but  not  from  Anphantrin. 

"  Vegetable  soap  "  (Ashleg).  Said  Samuel:  "  I  have  inquired 
of  a  number  of  seafaring  men  and  they  have  told  me  that  the 
name  for  it  is  Ashalgoh  ;  it  is  found  in  the  shells  of  a  pearl-oyster 
and  it  is  extracted  with  iron  needles." 

MISHNA  V/.  :  The  prescribed  quantity  for  (aromatic)  pepper 


TRACT    SABBATH.  169 

(pimento)  is  the  least  possible  amount;  for  tar  it  is  the  same; 
for  clifTcrent  kinds  of  spices  and  metals  it  is  also  the  same;  for 
the  stone  and  the  earth  of  the  altar,  torn  pieces  of  the  scroll  of 
laws  or  its  cover,  it  is  also  the  same,  because  such  things  are 
generally  preserved  by  men.  R.  Jehudah  said  :  The  same  quan- 
tity applies  to  everything  pertaining  to  the  worship  of  idols, 
because  it  is  written  [Deut.  xiii.  18]:  "  And  there  shall  not  cleave 
to  thy  hand  aught  of  the  devoted  things." 

GEMARA  :  To  what  use  can  such  a  small  quantity  of  pepper 
be  put  ?     It  may  be  used  by  one  whose  breath  is  foul. 

"  For  tar."  For  what  purpose  can  tar  in  so  small  a  quantity 
be  used  ?  It  may  be  used  by  one  who  has  the  sickness  Tzilcha- 
thah  (an  illness  where  only  one-half  of  the  head  aches). 

''For  different  kinds  of  spices.''     The    rabbis  taught:    Thr 
prescribed  quantity  both  for  aromatic  spices  as  well  as  for  ill 
smelling  oils  is  the  same  (least  possible  quantity) ;  for  purple  dy« 
also  the  same,  and  for  roses  only  one  rosebud. 

"  And  metals."  Of  what  use  are  they  ?  We  have  learned, 
R.  Simon  b.  Elazar  said:  They  can  be  used  to  make  a  goad. 

"  The  torn  pieces  of  the  scroll  of  laivs."  Said  R.  Jehudah: 
Book-worms,  silk-worms,  vine-worms,  date-worms,  and  pome- 
granate-worms are  all  dangerous  to  human  life.  There  was  a 
disciple  sitting  before  R.  Johanan  eating  dates,  and  the  disciple 
said  to  him  :  "  Rabbi,  there  are  thorns  in  the  dates."  Said  the 
rabbi:  "  The  date- worm  (Pah)  has  killed  this  man." 

MISHNA  VII. :  One  who  carries  the  chest  of  a  spice  dealer 
is  liable  for  one  sin-offering  only,  although  there  may  be  many 
spices  in  the  chest.  The  prescribed  quantity  for  garden  seeds 
is  the  equivalent  in  size  to  a  dried  fig.  R.  Jehudah  b.  Bathyra 
said  :  Five  different  seeds.  The  prescribed  quantity  for  cucumber 
seeds  are  two,  for  pumpkin  seeds  the  same,  for  Egyptian  beans 
the  same;  a  living  locust  (which  maybe  eaten),  be  it  ever  so 
small,  must  not  be  carried,  but  dead  locusts  may  be  carried  in 
quantities  less  than  a  dried  fig.  The  prescribed  quantity  for 
vineyard  birds*  living  or  dead  is  the  smallest  possible  quantity, 
because  they  were  preserved  for  medicinal  purposes.  R.  Jehudah 
said  :  One  must  not  carry  out  a  living  locust,  (which  must  not  be 
eaten),  be  it  ever  so  small,  because  such  locusts  were  kept  as 
playthings  for  small  children. 

GEMARA:  "Cucumber  seeds."     The  rabbis  taught:  The 

*  None  of  the  commentators  can  explain  what  kind  of  birds  is  meant. 


I70  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD, 

prescribed  quantity  for  seeds  used  for  planting  is  two,  but  for 
seeds  used  for  food  it  is  the  equivalent  of  a  pig's  mouthful. 
How  much  is  a  pig's  mouthful  ?  The  seeds  of  one  cucumber. 
For  cucumber  seeds  used  as  fuel  the  prescrbcd  quantity  is  as 
much  as  will  suffice  to  cook  an  egg;  for  cucumber  seeds  used 
as  counters  (for  figures)  only  two.  Anonymous  teachers  say 
five. 

The  rabbis  taught:  One  who  carries  two  hairs  from  the  tail 
of  a  horse  or  a  cow  is  culpable,  because  the  hairs  are  always 
preserved  for  making  nets.  The  prescribed  quantity  for  hog 
bristles  is  only  one ;  for  willows  (used  for  wickerwork)  two ;  for 
tree-bark*  one  strip. 

' '  R.  Jehudah  says :  A  locust  {which  must  not  be  eaten), ' '  etc. 
Why  did  not  the  first  Tana  of  the  Mishna  mention  this  ?  Because 
in  his  opinion  it  is  forbidden  to  carry  it  even  on  week-days,  lest 
one  eat  it.  If  such  is  the  case,  why  should  an  eatable  locust  be 
allowed  to  be  carried  ?  Did  not  R.  Kahana  stand  before  Rabh 
and  a  small  locust  lighted  on  his  lips:  Rabh  said  to  him.  (R. 
Kahana),  Take  it  away,  lest  people  say  that  thou  hast  eaten  it 
and  thou  hast  violated  the  commandment  [Leviticus,  xi.  43]: 
"Ye  shall  not  make  yourselves  abominable  with  any  creeping 
thing  that  creepeth  "  ?  Nay;  there  was  no  fear  that  the  locust 
would  be  eaten  alive,  but  they  apprehended  lest  it  die  and  then 
be  eaten.  (An  eatable  locust  would  not  matter,  but  an  uneat- 
able locust  would  be  a  violation  of  the  law.)  If  that  is  the  case, 
why  does  R.  Jehudah  permit  this  ?  R.  Jehudah  holds  that  there 
is  no  fear  of  the  locust  being  eaten  when  dead,  as  the  child  will 
mourn  its  death. 

*  Rashi  declares  in  his  commentary  that  he  does  not  know  what  it  is  nor  for  what 
purpose  it  is  used.     See  Aruch. 


CHAPTER  X. 

FURTHER    REGULATIONS    CONCERNING    THE    PRESCRIBED    QUANTITY 
OF    THINGS    TO    BE    STORED. 

MISHNA  /.  :  One  who  had  stored  anything  for  planting, 
sampling,  or  medicinal  purposes  (before  the  Sabbath)  and  carried 
some  of  it  out  (into  public  ground)  on  the  Sabbath,  be  it  ever 
so  small  a  quantity,  is  liable  for  a  sin-ofTering.  Any  one  else, 
however,  is  culpable  only  then  if  (he  carried  out)  the  prescribed 
quantity.  Even  the  one  who  had  stored  is  culpable  only  for  the 
prescribed  quantity,  if  he  brought  the  thing  carried  out  by  him 
back  (to  private  ground). 

GEMARA:  For  what  purpose  is  it  said  in  the  Mishna,  "  One 
who  stored  anything"?  Would  it  not  be  suflficient  to  say, 
"  One  who  carried  out  things  intended  for  planting,  sampling, 
or  medicinal  purposes,  be  the  quantity  ever  so  small,  is  cul- 
pable "  ?  Said  Abayi :  The  Mishna  treats  of  the  case  of  a  man 
who,  after  storing  the  thing,  forgot  for  what  purpose  he  had 
stored  it,  and  then  carried  it  out  into  the  street  for  any  purpose 
whatever.  Lest  one  say  that  the  original  intention  (to  store  it) 
is  abolished,  and  now  the  thing  carried  out  has  for  him  only  the 
same  value  as  for  others,  and  he  would  be  culpable  only  for  carrj'- 
ing  out  the  regularly  prescribed  quantity,  it  comes  to  teach  us 
that  one  who  commits  a  deed  executes  his  original  intention. 

R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  R.  Mcir  declares 
one  who  carried  out  only  a  single  wheat  grain,  intended  for 
sowing,  culpable.  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  The  Mishna  taught : 
"  Be  it  ever  so  small."  One  might  presume  that  the  term  "  be 
it  ever  so  small  "  denotes  something  smaller  than  a  dried  fig  but 
not  smaller  than  an  olive.  R.  Meir  therefore  informs  us  (that 
it  refers  even  to  one  wheat  grain).  R.  Itz'hak,  the  son  of  R. 
Jehudah,  opposed  this:  "  (We  see  that)  the  Mishna  declares  one 
culpable  for  an  act  originally  intended  to  be  performed,  but  now, 
supposing  a  man  intended  to  carry  out  his  entire  household  at 
once;  is  he  then  not  culpable  until  he  had  accomplished  the 
entire  task,  even  if  he  had  carried  out  part  of  it  ?  "     The  answer 

171 


172  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

was:  If  a  man  has  an  absurd  intention  it  is  abolished  by  the  law, 
and  he  is  culpable  for  carrying  out  the  prescribed  quantity. 

"  Any  one  else,  however,''  etc.  Our  Mishna  is  not  in  accord- 
ance with  that  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar  (on  page  145). 

Rabha  in  the  name  of  R.  Na'hman  said :  "  If  one  carried  out 
a  thing  the  size  of  a  dried  fig  with  the  intention  of  eating  it,  but 
changed  his  mind  in  the  meantime  and  then  intended  to  sow  it, 
or,  on  the  contrary,  first  intended  to  sow  it  and  then  to  eat  it,  he 
is  culpable.  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  The  prescribed  quantity 
for  both  eating  and  sowing  was  carried.  Lest  one  say  that  the 
removing  and  the  depositing  of  a  thing  must  be  done  with  the 
very  same  intention  in  order  to  make  one  culpable,  which  is  not 
so  in  this  case,  he  comes  to  teach  us  that  he  is  culpable. 

"  If  he  brought  the  thing,'"  etc.  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  (for 
he  did  not  sow  it,  we  then  see  that  his  original  intention  is  abol- 
ished). Said  Abayi :  "  The  Mishna  speaks  of  a  case  where  the 
man  took  the  thing  brought  from  his  house,  and  threw  it  into 
the  place  where  his  full  supply  was  kept,  and  the  place  where  he 
threw  it  remained  conspicuous.  Lest  one  say,  if  the  place  is 
conspicuous,  his  original  intention  is  not  yet  abolished,  because 
he  took  the  same  thing  again,  it  comes  to  teach  us  that  the 
throwing  of  the  thing  among  his  other  supplies  annulled  his 
original  intention, 

MISHNA  //. :  If  one  intended  to  carry  out  victuals  and 
deposited  them  on  the  doorstep,  whether  he  afterward  carried 
them  out  (into  the  street)  himself,  or  this  was  done  by  some  one 
else,  he  is  not  culpable,  because  he  did  not  accomplish  the  deed 
at  one  time.  If  one  deposited  a  basket  of  fruit  on  the  outside 
doorstep,  even  if  the  bulk  of  the  fruit  was  on  the  outside  (in 
the  street),  he  is  not  culpable,  unless  he  carried  out  the  entire 
basket  (into  the  street), 

GEMARA:  What  kind  of  a  doorstep  does  the  Mishna  have 
reference  to  ?  Should  we  assume  that  the  doorstep  was  public 
ground,  how  can  the  man  be  not  culpable  ?  He  carried  out 
from  private  into  public  ground.  Should  we  assume  that  the 
doorstep  was  private  ground,  why  does  the  Mishna  teach  that 
if  he  carried  it  out  (into  the  street),  or  any  one  else,  he  is  not 
culpable  ?  It  is  again  a  case  of  carrying  out  from  private  into 
public  ground  ?  We  must  therefore  assume  that  the  doorstep 
was  unclaimed  ground,  and  it  comes  to  teach  us  that  only  when 
the  victuals  were  deposited  on  the  unclaimed  ground  the  man 
is  not  culpable,  but  if  they  had  been  carried  out  from  private 


TRACT    SABBATH.  173 

into  public  ground,  even  by  way  of  unclaimed  ground,  he  is 
culpable.  And  the  Mishna  does  not  agree  with  the  opinion 
of  Ben  Azai,  of  the  following  Boraitha:  "  One  who  carries  out 
from  his  store  into  the  market  by  way  of  the  alley  is  culpable, 
but  Ben  Azai  says  he  is  not." 

'^  If  one  deposited  a  basket  of  fruit,''  etc.  Said  Hyzkiyah: 
The  case  in  question  treats  only  of  a  basket  filled  with  cucumbers 
and  beets,  but  if  full  of  mustard  seeds  he  is  culpable.  From 
this  we  see  that  Hyzkiyah  considers  a  vessel  no  support*  {i.e., 
the  cucumbers  are  encircled  by  the  basket  and  need  no  support), 
but  the  mustard  seeds,  which  are  heaped  up,  are  outside  of  the 
basket  proper  and  not  supported  by  it ;  therefore,  when  the  basket 
with  mustard  seeds  is  carried  outside,  part  of  the  mustard  seeds 
are  already  on  the  outside  and  the  carrier  is  culpable.  R. 
Johanan,  however,  says,  even  if  the  basket  contained  mustard 
seeds,  he  is  also  not  culpable.  Thence  we  see  that  R.  Johanan 
does  consider  a  vessel  a  support.  Said  R.  Zcra:  "  How  is  it 
with  the  Mishna  ?  It  is  neither  of  the  opinion  of  Hyzkiyah  nor 
of  R.  Johanan."  Hyzkiyah  may  explain  it  in  accordance  with 
his  theory  and  R.  Johanan  with  his  own.  Hyzkiyah  explains  the 
Mishna,  which  said  "  unless  he  carries  out  the  entire  basket." 
This  is  the  case  if  the  basket  is  filled  with  cucumbers  and  beets, 
but  if  filled  with  mustard  seeds  it  is  equal  to  putting  out  the 
entire  basket  into  the  street,  and  he  is  culpable,  but  R.  Johanan 
explained  the  Mishna  thus:  Although  the  bulk  of  the  fruit  is 
on  the  outside,  or  even  if  all  the  fruit  were  on  the  outside,  the 
man  would  not  be  culpable  unless  the  entire  basket  was  put  on 
the  outside.  So  also  said  Rabha:  The  Mishna  treats  only  of  a 
basket  filled  with  cucumbers  and  beets,  but  if  filled  with  mustard 
seeds  the  man  is  culpable.  Whence  we  see  that  he  does  not 
consider  a  vessel  a  support.  Abayi,  however,  said  :  Even  if  the 
basket  contained  mustard  seeds,  the  man  is  also  not  culpable. 
Whence  we  see  that  he  does  consider  a  vessel  a  support.  Shall 
we  say  that  Abayi  adopted  the  system  of  Rabha  and  Rabha  of 
Abayi,  or  Abayi  contradicts  himself  and  Rabha  does  the  same  ? 
As  it  was  taught:  One  who  carried  out  fruit  into  public  ground, 
Abayi  said,  is  culpable  only  if  he  carried  it  out  with  his  hand 
(although  the  body  remained  in  public  ground),  but  if  in  a  vessel 
he  is  not  culpable.  (Why  ?  Because  Abayi  does  not  consider 
the  body  a  support  to  the  hand,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 

*  The  Talmudical  tc-rm  for  "  support  "is  "  Agad,"  literally  "  bind."  In  theabove 
the  sense  demands  its  rendition  by  "  support." 


174  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

hand  is  attached  to  the  body,  but  if  he  carried  out  the  fruit  in  a 
vessel  and  part  of  the  vessel  still  remained  in  private  ground, 
he  is  not  culpable.)  And  Rabha  says,  on  the  contrary:  If  he 
carried  the  fruit  out  in  his  hand  he  is  not  culpable  (because 
he  considers  the  body  a  support  and  the  hand  is  part  of  the 
body),  but  if  he  carried  it  out  in  a  vessel  he  is  culpable  (be- 
cause, although  the  vessel  is  still  in  private  ground,  some  of 
the  fruit  is  in  public  ground).  The  answer  is:  Reverse  the 
case.  (Say  Abayi's  statement  should  be  Rabha's  and  Rabha's 
Abayi's). 

MISHNA  ///. :  One  who  carries  out  anything  in  the  right 
or  in  the  left  hand  or  in  his  bosom  or  on  his  shoulder  is  culpable, 
as  so  was  the  manner  in  which  the  sons  of  Kehath  carried  (their 
burdens),'^  But  one  who  carries  out  a  thing  on  the  back  of  his 
hand  or  with  his  foot,  with  his  mouth,  with  his  elbow,  with 
his  ear,  with  his  hair,  with  his  waist  bag,  the  opening  of  which 
is  at  the  bottom,  or  between  his  belt  and  his  shirt,  with  the  edge 
of  his  shirt,  with  his  shoe  or  sandal,  is  not  culpable,  because  he 
carries  it  in  an  unusual  manner. 

GEMARA:  R.  Elazar  said:  "  One  who  carries  out  a  burden 
ten  spans  above  the  ground  [not  on  his  shoulder,  but  in  the  air] 
is  culpable,  because  in  this  manner  the  sons  of  Kehath  carried 
their  burdens."  Whence  do  we  know  that  the  sons  of  Kehath 
carried  their  burdens  in  this  way  ?  It  is  written  [Numb.  iii.  26]: 
"Which  is  by  the  tabernacle  and  by  the  altar  round  about." 
Hence  he  compares  the  tabernacle  to  the  altar.  As  the  taber- 
nacle was  ten  ells,  so  was  also  the  altar  ten  ells ;  and  whence  do 
we  know  that  the  tabernacle  itself  was  ten  ells  ?  Because  it  is 
written  [Ex.  xxvi.  16]:  "  Ten  ells  shall  be  the  length  of  the 
boards."  Or  we  may  say  that  we  know  that  the  sons  of  Kehath 
carried  their  burdens  in  this  manner  from  the  ark,  as  the  Master 
said:  The  ark  was  nine  spans  high,  and  with  the  cover,  which 
was  one  span  higher,  it  was  ten.  Experience  is  to  the  effect 
that  when  a  burden  was  carried  on  the  shoulders  by  means  of 
poles,  one-third  of  the  burden  was  above  the  poles  and  two- 
thirds  below;  then  as  the  ark  was  ten  spans  high  and  one-third 
of  it  was  carried  above  the  shoulders,  it  was  certainly  more  than 
ten  spans  above  the  ground. 

But  let  it  be  inferred  from  Moses  himself,  of  whom  it  is  said 
elsewhere  that  he  was  very  tall.     With  Moses  the  case  is  differ- 

*  Numb.  iv. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  175 

cat ;  as  the  Master  said  elsewhere  that  the  Shekhina  does  not  rest 
upon  a  man  unless  he  is  a  scholar,  a  strong,  rich,  or  tall  man. 

It  was  taught:  One  who  carries  a  burden  on  his  head  is  not 
culpable.  And  if  one  will  say  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of 
Hutzal  do  so,  we  may  assume  that  their  deed  is  abolished  by  the 
rest  of  mankind,  who  do  not  carry  burdens  on  their  heads. 

MISIINA  IV.  :  One  who  intends  to  carry  something  in  front, 
but  the  thing  moved  to  his  back,  is  not  culpable,  but  if  he  intends 
to  carry  it  on  his  back  and  it  moves  to  the  front  he  is.  Of  a 
truth  it  was  said:  A  woman  who  wears  a  girdle,  whether  she 
carries  something  in  the  front  or  in  the  back  of  it,  is  culpable, 
because  the  girdle  invariably  turns  around.  R.  Jehudah  says  the 
same  rule  applies  to  letter-carriers. 

GEMARA:  Whore  is  the  difference?  The  main  object  (here 
is  the  intention).  And  in  either  case  his  intention  was  not  carried 
out ;  why  is  he  not  culpable  if  the  thing  moved  from  the  front  to 
the  back  and  culpable  if  it  moved  from  the  back  to  the  front  ? 
Said  R.  Elazar  :  "  Divide  the  Mishna  into  two  parts.  The  second 
part  was  not  taught  by  the  same  Tana  as  the  first."  Said  R.  Ashi : 
"  This  is  no  question  at  all.  Perhaps  the  Mishna  may  be  explained 
thus :  Not  only  did  the  man  intend  to  carry  it  on  his  back  and 
did  so,  which  would  make  him  culpable,  because  his  intention  was 
carried  out,  but  even  if  he  intended  to  carry  it  on  his  back  and  it 
moved  to  the  front,  in  which  case  his  intention  was  not  carried 
out,  lest  one  say  that  then  he  is  not  culpable,  it  comes  to  teach 
us  that  when  one  intends  to  preserve  the  thing  with  little  safety, 
and  it  occurs  that  he  has  done  so  with  a  proper  safety,  he  is  ben- 
efited by  it ;  hence  he  is  culpable." 

''Of  a  truth  it  zvas  saidy  There  is  a  Boraitha  :  Where rcr  it 
is  said  "  Of  a  truth  it  was  said,"  it  is  to  be  considered  that  so  the 
Halakha  prevails. 

"7?.  Jehudah  says  the  same  rule  applies  to  letter-carriers."  A 
Boraitha  in  addition  to  it  states  that  so  it  is  because  the  carriers 
of  the  government  usually  do  so. 

MISIINA  V.  :  One  who  carries  out  a  large  loaf  of  bread  into 
public  ground  is  culpable.  If  two  persons  do  this  together  they 
are  both  innocent,  provided  it  could  be  done  by  one  of  them  ;  if, 
however,  they  did  so  because  it  could  not  be  done  by  one,  both 
are  culpable.     R.  Simeon,  however,  declares  them  not  culpable. 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh,  according 
to  others  Abayi  said,  and  still  others  say  that  it  was  learned  in  a 
Boraitha :  "  If  of  both  men  who  carried  the  loaf,  either  was  able 


176  THE   BABYLONIAN    TAL?yIUD. 

to  carry  it  himself,  R.  Meir  makes  them  both  culpable,  but  R.  Je- 
hudah  and  R.  Simeon  declare  them  both  innocent.  If,  of  the  two, 
neither  was  able  (to  do  it  himself),  R.  Jehudah  and  R.  Meir  declare 
them  culpable  and  R.  Simeon  declares  them  free.  If  one  of  the 
two,  however,  was  able,  and  the  other  unable,  all  agree  that  the 
able  man  is  culpable."  Whence  is  all  this  deduced  ?  From  what 
the  rabbis  taught :  It  is  written  [Lev.  iv.  2]  :  "  If  any  person  sin," 
etc.,  i.e.,  if  he  committed  the  whole  deed  but  not  a  part  of  it. 
How  so  ?  If  two  persons  held  one  pitchfork  and  threw  grain  with 
it,  or  a  weaver's  spindle  and  wove  with  it,  or  a  quill  and  wrote 
with  it,  or  a  reed  and  carried  it  into  public  ground,  one  might  say 
that  they  are  culpable.  It  is  written  [ibid.]  :  **  If  any  person  sin," 
etc.  But  if  two  persons  held  a  date-press,  or  a  log,  and  carried 
them  out  into  public  ground,  R.  Jehudah  says,  if  one  of  the  two 
was  not  able  to  carry  it  himself  and  they  both  carried  it,  they  are 
both  culpable,  but  if  either  of  them  was  able,  both  are  not  culpa- 
ble. R.  Simeon  says,  even  if  one  alone  is  not  able  to  carry  it  and 
they  carried  it  out  together,  they  are  also  free.  For  only  referring 
to  such  an  instance  the  Scriptures  say  :  "  If  any  person,"  etc.,  and 
it  is  plain  that  one  is  culpable  if  he  performs  work  alone,  but  if 
two  persons  did  one  thing  they  are  both  free. 

The  master  said  :  If  one  of  the  two  was  able  to  perform  the 
work  alone  and  the  other  unable,  all  agree  that  he  is  culpable. 
Which  of  them  was  culpable?  R,  Hisda  said,  the  one  who  was 
able.  As  to  the  one  who  was  unable,  why  should  he  be  so  ?  What 
did  he?  Said  R.  Hamnuna  to  R.  Hisda:  "Why  not?  Did  he 
not  assist  the  one  who  was  able?  Answered  R.  Hisda:  Assisting 
is  not  of  consequence  (because  if  he  alone  is  not  able  to  perform 
the  work  himself,  his  assistance  is  of  no  value).  Said  R.  Zbid  in 
the  name  of  Rabha :  "  We  have  also  learned  in  a  Boraitha  in  sup- 
port of  this  argument :  If  one  suffering  from  a  venereal  disease 
rides  an  animal,  the  feet  of  which  are  encased  in  four  pieces  of 
cloth,  the  pieces  of  cloth  are  not  subject  to  defilement,  for  the 
reason  that  the  animal  is  able  to  stand  on  three  feet."  Why  are 
they  not  subject  to  defilement?  Was  not  one  foot  a  help  to  the 
other  three?  Hence  we  must  assume  that  one  of  the  feet  must 
be  regarded  as  a  help  to  the  other  three;  a  mere  help,  however, 
not  having  any  legal  consequence  cannot  become  defiled,  and  as 
it  is  impossible  to  determine  which  one  of  the  three  feet  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  help,  all  four  pieces  of  cloth  encasing  them  are  not 
subject  to  defilement. 

Again  the  master  said  :  If  either  of  the  two  were  able,  R. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  177 

Meir  holds  them  both  to  be  culpable.  The  schoolmen  propounded 
a  question  :  "  Must  the  object  carried  out  by  them  be  of  double 
the  prescribed  size,  /.<•.,  a  prescribed  size  for  each  of  them,  in  order 
to  make  them  culpable,  or  does  the  prescribed  size  for  one  man 
suffice  to  make  them  both  culpable?  R.  Hisda  and  R,  Hamnuna 
(both  answered):  One  of  them  held  that  one  prescribed  size  suf- 
fices,  and  the  other  that  it  must  be  double  in  order  to  make  them 
culpable,  (and  it  is  known  which  of  them  held  to  the  former  opin- 
ion and  which  to  the  latter).  Said  R.  Ashi :  "  We  have  also 
learned  in  a  Boraitha :  '  Two  men  who  carried  out  a  reed  used  by 
a  weaver  (into  the  street)  are  both  culpable.'  Why  so  ?  Was  not 
double  the  prescribed  quantity  necessary  in  order  to  make  both 
culpable?  Hence  we  must  assume  that  the  Boraitha  holds  one 
prescribed  quantity  to  be  sufficient."  Said  R.  Aha,  the  son  of 
Rabba,  to  R.  Ashi :  "  What  proof  do  you  derive  from  this 
Boraitha?  Perhaps  it  refers  to  a  reed  that  was  of  sufficient  size 
to  cook  an  egg  for  one  and  another  for  the  other?"  R.  Ashi 
answered  :  If  such  were  the  case,  the  Boraitha  would  say  merely 
a  "  reed  "  and  not  a  "  reed  used  by  a  weaver."  Said  R.  Aha  again  : 
"  Perhaps  the  Boraitha  refers  to  a  reed  of  sufficient  size  to  weave 
a  napkin  each  for  both  of  them  ?  Therefore  it  were  better  to  say 
that  from  this  Boraitha  we  can  derive  no  support  either  for  one 
opinion  or  the  other." 

A  certain  scholar  taught  in  the  presence  of  R.  Na'hman:  "  Two 
men  who  carried  out  a  reed  used  by  a  weaver  (into  the  street)  are 
both  not  culpable."  R.  Simeon,  however,  declares  them  culpable. 
How  can  this  be  ?  (Is  this  not  contrary  to  R.  Simeon's  usage }) 
Read  then  (on  the  contrary),  the  scholars  said  they  are  culpable 
and  R.  Simeon  said  they  are  not. 

MISHNA  F7.  :  If  one  carry  victuals  of  less  than  the  pre- 
scribed quantity  in  a  vessel  (out  into  the  street)  he  is  not  culpable 
even  of  (carrying)  the  vessel,  for  the  vessel  is  of  no  consequence 
to  the  victuals.  If  he  carried  a  person  on  a  litter  he  is  not  culpa- 
ble even  of  (carrying)  the  litter,  because  the  litter  is  of  no  conse- 
quence to  the  person.  If  he  carried  a  corpse  on  a  cot  he  is  cul- 
pable. The  same  is  the  case  if  (he  carries)  a  part  of  the  corpse  of 
the  size  of  an  olive  or  of  a  carcass  the  size  of  an  olive  and  of  a 
reptile  the  size  of  a  lentil.     R.  Simeon  declares  all  of  them  free. 

GEMARA  :  The  rabbis  taught :  "  If  a  man  carry  out  victuals 
of  the  prescribed  quantity  in  a  vessel,  he  is  culpable  of  carrying 
the  victuals,  but  not  of  (carrying)  the  vessel,  because  the  vessel  is 
of  no  consequence  to  the  victuals  ;  but  if  the  victuals  are  such  that 

VOL.  I.  — 12 


178  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

they  cannot  be  carried  otherwise  than  in  a  vessel,  he  is  culpable 
of  (carrying)  the  vessel  also."  Shall  we  assume  from  this  teach- 
ing that  if  one  ate  two  pieces  of  tallow  each  the  size  of  an  olive  at 
different  times  through  forgetfulness(and  was  not  reminded  of  his 
sin  between  both  times  of  eating),  he  is  bound  to  bring  two  sin- 
offerings?  Said  R.  Ashi :  In  the  case  of  the  man  who  is  culpable 
of  (carrying)  both  the  victuals  and  the  vessel,  it  must  be  assumed 
that  he  carried  them  thfough  forgetfulness  and  was  subsequently 
reminded  of  having  carried  only  one  of  them  (but  forgot  about  the 
other) ;  later  he  was  reminded  of  having  carried  the  other  also,  and 
according  to  the  opinion  of  the  teacher  of  this  Boraitha,  he  is  cul- 
pable and  bound  to  bring  two  sin-offerings,  one  for  each  time  he 
was  reminded.  The  same  difference  of  opinion  exists  here  as  we 
have  seen  existed  between  R.  Johanan  and  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish 
(in  the  chapter  concerning  the  general  rule  of  Sabbath). 

'^  If  he  carried  a  person  in  a  litter,''  etc.  Shall  we  assume  that 
the  Mishna  is  in  accordance  with  R.  Nathan  and  not  with  the 
rabbis  of  the  following  Boraitha?  "  If  one  carried  out  an  animal 
or  a  bird  (into  the  street),  whether  alive  or  slaughtered,  he  is 
liable."  R.  Nathan,  however,  says  :  "  For  (carrying  out)  a  slaugh- 
tered (animal  or  bird)  he  is  culpable,  but  not  for  one  that  is  alive, 
because  a  live  creature  carries  itself."  Said  Rabha  :  *'  It  may  be 
said  the  Mishna  is  in  accordance  with  the  rabbis  of  the  Boraitha 
cited,  as  they  differ  with  R.  Nathan  only  concerning  animals  or 
birds,  which  usually  struggle  to  get  loose  and  thus  become  a  bur- 
den ;  but  concerning  a  person,  who  is  carried  and  agrees  to  being 
carried,  and  virtually  carries  himself,  the  rabbis  yield  to  R. 
Nathan." 

Said  R.  Ada  b.  Ahba  to  Rabha :  How  will,  in  your  opinion, 
the  statement  in  our  Mishna  be  made  plain  :  "  Ben  Bathyra  per- 
mits the  selling  of  a  horse  to  a  Gentile,  and  a  Boraitha,  in  addition 
to  this,  states  that  the  reason  that  Ben  Bathyra  permits  this  is 
because  the  Gentile  will  not  perform  any  work  with  the  horse  on 
a  Sabbath  that  would  involve  the  liability  of  a  sin-offering  (for  a 
horse  is  used  for  riding  only,  and  when  a  person  rides  a  horse  the 
person  virtually  carries  himself,  and  hence  is  no  burden  to  the 
horse),  and  R.  Johanan  says  that  Ben  Bathyra  and  R.  Nathan  said 
(practically)  the  same  thing."  Now,  if  in  your  opinion  the  rabbis 
differ  with  R.  Nathan  only  in  the  matter  of  animals  and  birds, 
because  when  carried  they  struggle  for  freedom,  but  agree  with 
him  in  the  matter  of  a  person,  why  does  R.  Johanan  say  that  only 
Ben  Bathyra  and  R.  Nathan  say  the  same  thing?     Did  not  the 


TRACT    SABBATH.  179 

rabbis  also  admit  this?  (The  answer  was:)  R.  Johanan  said  that 
Ben  Bathyra  in  permitting  a  horse  to  be  sold  to  a  Gentile  referred 
to  one  whicii  was  used  only  for  carrying  falcons.  Are  there  then 
such  horses  ?     Yea  ;  they  are  to  be  found  at  the  Zaidons'.* 

R.  Johanan  said  :  Even  R.  Nathan  holds  a  man  culpable  if  he 
carries  a  person,  animal,  or  bird  that  is  bound. 

"//■  he  carried  a  corpse^'  etc.  Said  Rabba  b.  b.  Hana  in  the 
name  of  R.  Johanan,  and  the  same  was  said  by  R.  Joseph  in  the 
name  of  R.  Simeon  b.  Lakish  :  R.  Simeon  frees  one,  even  if  he 
carries  out  a  corpse  for  burial.  Said  Rabha  :  "  Even  R.  Simeon 
concedes  tiiat  if  one  carry  out  a  spade  to  dig  a  grave  with,  or  a 
scroll  to  read  from,  he  is  culpable."  Is  this  not  self-evident  ? 
Should  we  then  assume  that  according  to  R.  Simeon's  opinion 
even  this  kind  of  labor  is  not  labor  for  its  own  sake,  how  can  we 
find  any  labor  for  its  own  sake  which  in  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon 
would  involve  the  liability  of  a  sin-ofTering?  Lest  one  say  that 
R.  Simeon  does  not  hold  a  man  culpable  for  carrj'ing  a  thing  un- 
less the  work  done  with  the  thing  is  both  for  the  man's  sake  and 
also  for  the  sake  of  the  thing  itself — for  instance,  if  the  spade  was 
needed  for  digging  and  also  had  to  be  sharpened,  or  the  scroll  had 
to  be  examined  and  used  for  reading — hence  he  informs  us  that 
such  is  not  the  case. 

There  was  a  corpse  in  Drokraf  and  R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak 
permitted  it  to  be  carried  out  into  unclaimed  ground.  Said  R. 
Johanan,  the  brother  of  Mar,  son  of  Rabhina,  to  R.  Na'hman  b. 
Itz'hak :  "According  to  which  Tana's  opinion  do  you  act  ?  Ac- 
cording to  R.  Simeon  ?  Did  R.  Simeon  allow  this  ?  He  only 
stated  that  the  act  does  not  involve  the  liability  of  a  sin-offering, 
but  he  did  not  permit  it  to  start  with?  "  R.  Na'hman  answered  : 
By  the  Lord  !  You  yourself,  and  even  R.  Jehudah,  would  allow 
this  to  be  done  the  same  as  I  did  ;  did  I  say  that  it  was  to  be  car- 
ried into  public  ground  ?  I  said  unclaimed  ground  !  Do  not 
forget  that  this  was  also  for  the  sake  of  the  honor  due  a  human 
being,  of  which  it  is  said  :  ''Precious  is  the  honor  of  man,  and  for 
its  sake  even  a  direct  commandment  of  the  Scripture  may  be  cir- 
cumvened!  " 

MISHNA    V/I.  :    One  who  pares  his  finger-nails,  either  by 

*  The  text  reads  V'aidon;  Luria  corrects  this  to  read  Zaidon,  as  we  have  adopted, 
which  means  a  falconer's  horse.  Ilai,  the  Gaon,  however  corrects  it  Bazaidon, 
because  a  falconer  in  the  Persian  language  is  Baz,  and  one  who  occupies  himself  by 
hunting  for  birds  is  called  Bazaidon. 

\  Name  of  a  city. 


i8o  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

means  of  his  nails  or  by  means  of  his  teeth ;  also  one  who  plucks 
hair  from  his  head,  beard,  or  lip ;  also  a  woman  who  braids  her 
hair,  or  paints  her  eyebrows,  or  parts  her  hair,  is,  according  to  R. 
Eliezer,  culpable.  The  sages,  however,  declare  this  to  be  (pro- 
hibited only  by  rabbinical  law)  as  a  precautionary  measure. 

GEMARA :  Said  R.  Elazar :  "  The  difference  of  opinion 
exists  only  in  the  case  of  paring  the  finger-nails  by  means  of 
the  nails,  but  if  taken  off  with  an  instrument  (all  agree)  that  he 
is  culpable."  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  Is  it  not  plainly  written 
in  the  Mishna,  if  he  pares  his  finger-nails,  one  by  means  of  the 
others?  One  might  think  that  the  difference  of  opinion  is  also 
concerning  an  instrument,  and  the  reason  the  Mishna  does  not 
mention  an  instrument  is  only  to  show  the  firmness  of  R.  Eliezer 
in  prohibiting  the  paring  of  finger-nails  even  with  one's  own  nails. 
He  informs  us  that  the  difference  of  opinion  is  concerning  the 
nails  only.  R.  Elazar  said  furthermore :  "  The  difference  of  opin- 
ion is  only  concerning  a  man's  paring  his  own  finger-nails,  but  if 
he  pared  another's  all  agree  that  he  is  not  culpable.  (The  reason 
for  this  is  because  when  paring  one's  own  finger-nails  a  man  can 
make  them  look  as  if  trimmed  with  an  instrument,  but  when 
trimming  another's  this  is  not  possible.)"  Is  this  not  self-evident  ? 
Did  not  the  Mishna  say  plainly  :  "  His  own  finger-nails  "  ?  Nay. 
One  might  think  that  according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Eliezer  the 
trimming  of  another's  finger-nails  also  makes  one  culpable,  but 
the  Mishna,  stating  plainly  "  his  own  finger-nails,"  intends  only 
to  show  the  firmness  of  the  rabbis  in  making  not  culpable  even 
those  who  pare  their  own  nails ;  therefore  he  informs  that  such  is 
not  the  case. 

"Also  one  who  plucks  hair  from  his  head,''  etc.  There  is  a 
Boraitha :  "  One  who  cuts  off  a  scissorsful  of  hair  from  his  head 
on  the  Sabbath  is  culpable."  How  much  is  a  scissorsful  supposed 
to  be  ?  Two  hairs.  R.  Eliezer  says  :  "  One."  The  rabbis  agree 
with  R.  Eliezer  that  in  case  one  gray  hair  is  plucked  from  a  num- 
ber of  black  hairs  a  man  is  culpable  even  for  one,  and  not  only 
on  Sabbath  but  even  on  week  days  it  is  also  prohibited,  as  it  is 
written  [Deut.  xxii.  5]  :  "  And  a  man  shall  not  put  on  a  woman's 
garment." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar  said  :  "  If 
a  finger-nail  become  separated  from  the  finger  of  its  own  accord, 
a  man  may  remove  the  adhering  part,  providing  the  greater  part 
of  the  nail  was  separated.  He  may  do  this  with  his  fingers,  but 
not  with  an  instrument.     If  he  did  it,  however,  with  an  instru- 


TRACT    SABBATH.  i8i 

ment,  he  is  not  liable  for  a  sin-offering.  If  the  smaller  part  only 
was  separated,  he  may  not  remove  it.  If  he  did  so,  however,  with 
his  fingers,  he  is  not  culpable,  but  with  an  instrument  he  is.  Said 
R.  Jehudah  :  "  The  Ilalakha  prevails  in  accordance  with  R.  Simeon 
b.  Elazar."  Said  Rabba  b.  b.  liana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan 
"  Provided  the  nail  was  bent  upward  and  was  troublesome." 

"Also  a  woman  zv/io  braids  her  hair,"  etc.  In  what  categoiy 
can  her  work  be  counted  ?  Said  R.  Abuhu  :  "  It  was  explained  to 
me  by  R.  Jossi  b.  Hanina :  '  Painting  the  eyebrows  comes  in  the 
class  of  work  enumerated  as  dyeing,  braiding,  and  parting  the  hair 
in  the  class  of  building.'  "  Is  this  the  manner  of  building  ?  Yea  ; 
as  R.  Simeon  b,  Menassia  taught :  It  is  written  [Gen.  ii.  22]  : 
"  And  the  Lord  God  formed  *  the  rib  which  he  had  taken  from 
the  man."  From  this  may  be  adduced  that  the  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He,  braided  the  hair  of  Eve  and  brought  her  to  Adam.  For 
in  the  seaports  hair  braiding  and  dressing  is  called  building. 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar  said  : 
"  Braiding  the  hair,  painting  the  eyebrows,  and  parting  the  hair, 
if  done  for  herself,  does  not  make  her  culpable  (because  it  cannot 
be  properly  termed  building)  ;  but  if  done  for  another  it  does 
make  her  culpable."  Furthermore,  R.  Simeon  b.  Elazar  said  in 
the  name  of  R.  Eliezer:  "A  woman  shall  not  put  red  dye  on  her 
face,  because  that  constitutes  painting." 

The  rabbis  taught :  If  one  milked  a  cow  and  then  made  cheese 
of  the  milk  to  the  size  of  a  dried  fig ;  if  he  swept  a  floor  or  damp- 
ened a  floor  (to  lay  the  dust);  or  if  he  removed  honeycombs  from 
a  beehive,  his  case  is  as  follows:  If  he  performed  these  acts  un- 
intentionally on  Sabbath,  he  is  bound  to  bring  a  sin-offering,  and 
if  he  did  all  this  intentionally  on  a  biblical  feast-day,  he  shall 
receive  forty  stripes.  Such  is  the  opinion  of  R.  Eliezer,  but  the 
sages  said  :  "  All  this  is  only  prohibited  by  rabbinical  law  as  a 
precautionary  measure."  (Says  the  Gemara  :)  Now  the  ordinance 
having  prevailed  according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon,  all  these 
acts  are  not  prohibited  at  all. 

MISHNA  VIII. :  One  who  plucks  something  from  a  perfo- 
rated flower-pot  is  culpable ;  from  a  flower-pot  that  is  not  perfo- 
rated he  is  not  culpable.  R.  Simeon  held  him  not  culpable  in 
both  cases. 

Abayi  put  a  contradictory  question  to  Rabha,  according  to 
others  R.  Hyya  b.  Rabh  to  his  father  Rabh  :  "  The  Mishna  states 

*  The  Hebrew  word  for  "formed"  is  "  V^-iyivcn,"  literally  "built." 


i83  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

that  R.  Simeon  holds  one  not  culpable  in  either  case.  From  this 
we  see  well  that  to  R.  Simeon  a  perforated  or  a  solid  flower-pot 
is  one  and  the  same  thing.  We  have  learned  in  another  Boraitha  : 
R.  Simeon  said  that  there  is  no  difference  between  a  perforated 
and  a  solid  flower-pot  except  to  make  the  seeds  grown  in  the 
flower-pot  subject  to  defilement  {i.e.,  in  a  solid  flower-pot  the 
seeds  are  not  accounted  as  seeds).  Hence  there  is  a  difference 
between  the  pots  in  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon."  The  answer 
was :  In  all  cases  except  defilement  R.  Simeon  regards  seeds  in 
either  a  perforated  or  a  solid  flower-pot  as  loose  {i.e.,  detached 
from  the  ground).  In  the  case  of  defilement,  however,  it  is  dif- 
ferent, because  the  Scriptures  themselves  added  a  special  provi- 
sion regarding  defilement  of  seeds,  as  it  is  written  [Lev.  xi.  37] : 
"  And  if  any  part  of  their  carcass  fall  upon  any  sowing-seed 
which  hath  been  sown,  it  shall  be  clean." 


END   OF  VOLUME   I. 


NEW    EDITION 


Babylonian  Talmud 


©rtcitnal  Tlcrt,  ]eMte&,  Correcte^,  lfcrmulatc^,  an& 
^ran5latc5  into  Hnolisb 

BY 

MICHAEL    L.   RODKINSON 


THE    REV.   DR.  ISAAC    M.  WISE 

President  Hebrew  Union  College,  Cincinnati,  O. 


SECTION    MOED    (FESTIVALS),  TRACT    SABBATH 


Volume  II. 


Boston 

THE  TALMUD  SOCIETY 

1918 


EXPLANATORY   REMARKS. 

In  our  translation  we  adopted  these  principles  : 

1.  Tenan  of  the  original — We  have  learned  in  a  Mishna  ;  Tania — We  have 
learned  in  a  Boraitha  ;    Itemar — It  was  taught. 

2.  Questions  are  indicated  by  the  interrogation  point,  and  are  immediately 
followed  by  the  answers,  without  being  so  marked. 

3.  When  in  the  original  there  occur  two  statements  separated  by  the  phrase, 
Lishna  achrena  or  Wa'ibayith  Aetna  (literally,  "otherwise  interpreted"),  we  translate 
only  the  second. 

4.  As  the  pages  of  the  original  are  indicated  in  our  new  Hebrew  edition,  it  is  not 
deemed  necessarj-  to  mark  them  in  the  English  edition,  this  being  only  a  translation 
from  the  latter. 


Copyright,  i8q6,  hy 
MICHAEL  I,.   RODKINSON. 


Copyright  1916,  by 
NEW  TALMUD  PUBLISHING  SOCIETY 


CONTENTS. 


PACE 

Synopsis  of  Subjects  of  Volume  II. — Tract  Sabbath,  xli 

CHAPTER   XI. 

Regulations    concerning    Throwing    from    one   Ground 

INTO  Another,  ........     189 

CHAPTER   XII. 

Regulations   concerning    Building,    Ploughing,  etc.,  on 

THE  Sabbath,    .........     204 

CHAPTER   XIII. 
Regulations    concerning    Weaving,    Tearing,    Hunting, 

ETC.,    ON    THE    SaBBATH, 213 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

Regulations  concerning  the  Catching  of  Repiiles,  Ani- 
mals AND  Birds,       ........     219 

CHAPTER   XV. 
Regulations    concerning    the    Tying    and    Untying    of 

Knots  on  the  Sabbath, 230 

CHAPTER    XVI. 
Regulations   concerning;  Articles  which    may    be   .^aved 

FRO.M    a    CoNFLAGRA  llON    ON    SaIUSATH,       ....        239 

CHAPTER    XVII. 
Regulations  concerning   ihk  Handling  of  Utensils  and 

Furniture  on  the  Sauhaih.  .....     :66 


PAGE 


xl  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   XVIII. 

Regulations  regarding  the  Clearing  Off  of  Required 
Space,  the  Assistance  to  be  Given  Cattle  when 
Giving  Birth  to  their  Young  and  to  Women  about 
to  be  Confined,        ........     276 

CHAPTER   XIX. 
Regulations  ordained   by    R,    Eliezer   concerning    Cir- 
cumcision on  the  Sabbath, 288 

CHAPTER   XX. 

Regulations  concerning  Certain  Acts  of  Labor  Which 
must  be  Performed  Differently  on  a  Sabbath  and 
on  a  Festival, ^09 

CHAPTER   XXI. 
Regulations  concerning  the  Pouring  Out  of  Wine  from 
Vessels   Covered  with   a   Stone  (which  must  not  be 
lifted),  and  the  Clearing  Off  of  Crumbs,  etc.,  from 
THE  Table 322 

CHAPTER   XXII. 

Regulations  concerning  Preparation  of  Food  and  Bev- 
erages,       328 

CHAPTER   XXIII. 

Regulations  concerning  Borrowing,  Casting  Lots,  Wait- 
ing FOR  THE  Close  of  the  Sabbath,  and  Attending 
to  a  Corpse, 342 

CHAPTER   XXIV. 
Regulations  concerning   a   Man  Who   is   Overtaken    by 
Dusk    on    the    Eve    of    Sabbath    while    Travelling, 

AND    CONCERNING    FEEDING    OF    CaTTLE,     ....       363 

THE  PRAYER  AT  THE   CONCLUSION  OF  A  TRACT,     379 
APPENDIX,     .         .         ,  ......     381 


SYNOPSIS  OF  SUBJECTS 

OF 

VOLUME    II.— TRACT    SABBATH 


CHAPTER   XI. 


MiSHNAS  I.,  II.,  III.,  IV.,  and  V.  Throwing  from  private  into  private  by 
way  of  public  ground.  What  constituted  the  sin  of  the  wood-gatherer.  The 
mysterious  scrolls  found  by  Rabh  in  the  house  of  his  uncle  R.  Hyya  concern- 
ing the  principal  acts  of  labor.  What  was  the  name  of  the  wood-gatherer. 
Arraignment  of  R.  Aqiba  by  Jehudah  ben  Bathyra  for  slandering  Zeloph- 
chad,  by  naming  him  as  the  wood-gatherer,  and  for  slandering  Aaron,  by 
staling  that  he  had  been  punished  by  leprosy.  Reward  for  merit  comes 
more  quickly  than  retribution  for  wickedness.  Regulations  concerning  pits 
in  public  ground  for  the  Sabbath.  Throwing  from  a  distance  of  four  ells 
against  a  wall.  Throwing  within  four  ells,  when  the  object  thrown  rolled  to 
a  greater  distance.  Throwing  at  sea  for  a  distance  of  four  ells,  and  throw- 
ing from  the  sea  to  land,  or  from  one  ship  to  another.  Throwing  a  thing  on 
Sabbath  and  recollecting  that  it  was  Sabbath  immediately  afterwards.  If  the 
thing  liirown  was  caught  by  another.  The  rule  concerning  what  constitutes 
committing  an  act  through  error,  involving"  the  liability  for  a  sin-offering, 

189-203 
CHAPTER    XII. 

MiSHNAS  I.,  II.,  III.,  and  IV.  Concerning  building.  The  amount  of 
building  involving  liability  for  a  sin-offering;  the  amount  of  ploughing.  The 
writing  of  how  many  letters  make  one  liable  for  a  sin-olfering  ;  witii  whicn 
hand  that  is  to  be  done.  The  wonderful  statement  of  some  young  men  at 
the  schoolhouse,  which  was  not  heard  of  even  in  the  time  of  Joshua  the  son 
of  Nun.  Why  the  letters  of  the  word  Sheqer  (lie)  are  so  close  together  (in  the 
order  of  sequence  o(  the  alphabet)  and  the  letters  of  Emclh  (truth)  so  far 
apart  ?  Because  lies  are  very  frequent  and  truth  very  scarce.  Tattooing. 
Ben  Sattadai,  being  a  fool,  cannot  i)e  cited  as  an  instance,  .         204-212 

CHAPTER    XIII. 

MiSHNAS  I.,  II.,  III.,  and  IV.  Concer.iing  weaving.  How  many  threads 
one  must  weave  to  become  culpable.     One  who  ♦ears  an  article  or  breaks  a 

xli 


xlii  SYNOPSIS   OF    SUBJECTS. 

vessel  on  the  Sabbath  in  a  moment  of  fury  is  regarded  as  one  who  practises 
idolatry.  Concerning  one  who  rends  his  garments  upon  being  advised  of  the 
death  of  a  relative  on  Sabbath.  Reward  for  shedding  tears  over  the  death 
of  a  righteous  man.  Fate  of  those  who  fail  to  mourn  the  death  of  a  scholar. 
If  one  member  of  the  community  die,  let  the  entire  community  beware. 
Rules  pertaining  to  hunting  and  trapping.  May  the  door  be  closed  on  a 
stag  who  seeks  refuge  in  a  dwelling  ? 213-218 

CHAPTER   XIV. 

MiSHNA  I.  Concerning  the  eight  kinds  of  vermin  mentioned  in  the 
Thorah.  On  what  material  the  Phylacteries  may  be  written.  Samuel's  and 
Kama's  experience  with  Rabh  upon  the  arrival  of  the  latter  in  Babylon  from 
Palestine.  Questions  put  to  Rabh  by  Kama.  Samuel's  remedies  given 
Rabh  during  the  latter's  illness.  Questions  put  to  R.  Joshua  of  Garthi  by  a 
Bathusee,  and  R.  Joshua's  replies, 219-222 

MiSHNA  II.  Concerning  the  preparation  of  salt  water  on  Sabbath.  A 
drop  of  water  the  best  remedy  for  sore  eyes.  Which  parts  of  the  body  must 
not  be  touched  by  the  hand  immediately  after  arising  and  before  performing 
the  morning  ablutions.  The  comparison  of  the  eye  to  a  princess,  who  should 
not  be  touched  by  a  hand  that  had  not  been  washed  three  times.  Is  it  per- 
mitted to  bathe  a  sore  hand  in  wine  or  vinegar  on  Sabbath?         .         222-225 

MiSHNAS  III.  and  IV.  Concerning  foods  and  beverages  which  may  be 
partaken  of  on  Sabbath  for  medicinal  purposes.  Definition  of  the  tree-water 
mentioned  in  the  Mishna.  The  aptitude  of  Babylonian  beer  as  a  remedy. 
The  use  of  Ikkarim  (a  preventive  against  pregnancy),  .         .        225-229 

CHAPTER   XV. 

MiSHNAS  I.,  II.,  and  III.  Concerning  the  tieing  and  untieing  of  knots  on 
Sabbath.  The  poverty  of  R.  Jehudah,  the  brother  of  Sallah  the  Pious,  and 
the  manner  he  and  his  shared  the  use  of  one  pair  of  sandals,  230-233 

Mishna  IV.  Concerning  the  folding  of  clothes  and  the  making  of  beds 
on  the  Sabbath.  Laws  concerning  a  Sabbath  that  is  concurrent  with  the 
Day  of  Atonement.  Distinction  of  attire  on  Sabbath  from  that  on  week-days. 
R.  Johanan's  statement  in  reference  to  clothes.  Rules  for  walking  on  the 
Sabbath.  Inferences  drawn  from  the  biblical  passage  :  "Give  unto  the  wise, 
and  he  will  become  wiser."  Boaz's  object  in  marrying  Ruth.  The  mention 
made  in  the  Thorah  concerning  change  of  attire.  The  necessity  for  a  scholar 
of  keeping  his  attire  immaculate.  The  degree  of  trustworthiness  required  of 
a  scholar  in  order  that  he  may  recover  a  lost  article  without  identification. 
The  degree  of  worth  required  of  a  scholar  to  allow  of  his  eligibility  to  the 
presidency  of  a  congregation.  Rules  concerning  the  cleansing  of  food  on 
the  afternoon  of  the  Day  of  Atonement, 233-238 

CHAPTER   XVi. 

MiSHNAS  I.  and  II.  Concerning  the  saving  of  sacred  scrolls  from  a  con- 
flagration on  S.ibhath.     Whnt  is  the  Ihw  concerning  such  scrolls  if  written  in 


SYNOPSIS    OF    SUBJECTS.  xliii 

Aramaic,  Coptic.  Median,  old  Hebrew,  F.iamite.  and  rrreek  ?  Wfiat  hap- 
pened to  Aba  Halafta  on  his  visit  to  R.  Gamaliel  the  Great  in  Tiberias, 
while  sitting  at  the  table  of  Johanan  the  Nazuph.  Aba  Halafta's  reminis- 
cence of  R.  Gamaliel's  grandfather,  in  reference  to  the  book  of  Job,  written 
in  Aramaic.  The  law  concerning  the  saving  of  written  benedictions  and 
amulets  from  a  conflagration.  One  who  writes  benedictions  is  regarded  as 
one  who  burns  the  Law.  What  happened  to  men  of  Sidon,  who  wrote  bene- 
dictions, which  fact  became  known  to  R.  Ishmael.  Why  are  the  two  verses 
(Numbers  x.  35  and  36)  marked  by  signs  ?  What  is  the  law  concerning  the 
bdving  of  the  Gilyonim  and  the  books  of  the  Saflducees  from  a  conflagration  ? 
R.  Tarphon's  dictum  in  this  matter.  Enia  Shalom,  R.  Eliezer's  wife's,  and 
her  brother  R.  Gamaliel's  experience  with  a  philosopher,  who  was  also  a 
judge.  The  I.tw  concerning  covers  of  books,  and  to  which  place  they  may 
be  taken  in  case  of  fire,  ........         239-257 

MiSHNA  III.  How  much  food  may  be  saved  from  a  conflagration  on 
Sabbath  ?  How  should  bread  be  cut  on  the  Sabbath  ?  The  number  of  meals 
to  be  eaten  on  Sabbath.  The  amount  of  properly  a  poor  man  may  own  and 
suil  not  be  debarred  from  accepting  charitable  gifts.  What  should  be  given 
to  an  itinerant  beggar.  The  reward  of  those  who  observe  the  eating  of  three 
meals  on  the  Sabbatli.  The  reward  of  one  who  makeih  tlie  Sabbath  a  de- 
light. By  what  means  we  may  make  the  Sabbath  a  delight.  The  good 
deeds  related  by  several  Tanaim  and  Amoraim,  to  have  been  especially  taken 
care  of  by  them.  The  different  kinds  of  work  performed  by  each  one  of  the 
Amoraim  personally  in  honor  of  the  Sabbath.  Anecdote  told  of  Joseph,  who 
honored  the  Sabbath,  and  his  rich  Gentile  neighbor.  The  eventual  impover- 
ishment of  the  Gentile  through  the  purchase  of  a  pearl  which  was  swallowed 
by  a  fish,  and  the  sudden  wealth  of  Joseph,  who  bought  the  fish  and  found 
the  pearl.  Experience  of  R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  while  the  guest  of  a  rich  man  in 
the  city  of  Ludkai.  How  must  the  Day  of  Atonement  be  honored?  What 
the  two  angels  who  accompany  man  at  the  close  of  Sabbath  say  to  one  who 
had  honored  the  Sabbath  and  to  one  who  had  not.  The  story  of  R.  Abuha 
and  his  calf.  Different  opinions  concerning  the  cause  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem, 257,  258 

MiSHN'AS  IV.,  v.,  VI.,  and  VII.  How  many  loaves  of  bread  may  be  saved 
in  a  basket  from  a  conflagration.  It  is  allowed  to  cover  a  chest  with  a  goat- 
skin to  keep  it  from  burning.  Partitions  to  be  made  with  vessels  filled  with 
water.  Concerning  a  candle  that  had  fallen  on  the  table.  Concerning  Gen- 
tiles and  minors  at  the  extinguishing  of  a  fire  on  Sabbath.  The  miracle 
occurring  for  Joseph  ben  Simai.  What  dangerous  animals  may  be  killed  on 
Sabbath.  The  dissatisfaction  of  the  pious  with  those  who  kill  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  sages  with  the  pious.  Aba  bar  Minyumi  at  the 
house  of  the  Exilarch.  The  story  of  R.  Gamaliel  on  board  of  a  ship,  and  of 
Samuel,  in  whose  presence  a  Gentile  lit  a  candle  for  his  own  use,       258-265 

CHAPTER    XVII. 

MlSHNAS  I.  to  VI.  Concerning  vessels  which  may  be  handled  on  the  Sab- 
bath. Vessels  which  may  be  removed  for  lack  of  space,  also  from  sunshine 
into  the  shade  ;  whether  fragments  fit  the  vessels  may  be  moved  with  them, 


xliv  SYNOPSIS   OF   SUBJECTS 

and  other  such  matters.     The  questions  put  to  Rabh  by  Mari  bar  Rachel,  and 
Rabh's  replies.     Concerning  window-blinds  and  covers  of  vessels,      266-275 

CHAPTER   XVIII. 

MiSHNA  I.  How  much  straw  may  be  removed  for  the  accommodation 
of  guests  on  Sabbath.  The  reward  for  hospitality.  Different  opinions  con- 
cerning the  merits  of  hospitality.  The  six  things  of  which  the  interest  is 
paid  to  man  on  earth  and  the  principal  in  the  world  to  come.  The  four 
additional  things  which  include  the  previous  six.  Concerning  one  who 
judges  his  neighbor  charitably,  and  his  reward  above.  The  story  of  the  man 
who  was  hired  by  the  father  of  Hyrcanos  for  three  years,  and  who  was  not 
paid  at  the  end  of  the  term.  The  story  of  the  pious  man  who  ransomed  a 
maiden  from  captivity.  The  story  of  R.  Jehoshua  and  the  Roman  matron, 
and  his  disciples.     Whether  salt  meat  and  salt  fish  may  be  handled,  276-281 

MiSHNA  II.  Concerning  a  basket  set  down  for  chickens  to  climb.  Con- 
cerning a  woman  carrying  her  child.  What  may  be  done  in  the  event  of  an 
animal  falling  into  the  water  on  Sabbath 281,282 

MiSHNA  III.  Concerning  animals  about  to  calve  on  a  festival.  What 
assistance  may  be  given  a  woman  about  to  give  birth  to  child  on  a  Sabbath. 
For  how  long  a  period  may  the  Sabbath  be  violated  on  account  of  a  woman 
lying-in  ?  From  what  time  is  she  considered  to  be  lying-in  ?  Where  life  is 
at  stake,  the  ordinances  may  be  put  to  the  most  lenient  construction.  Every- 
thing necessary  for  a  sick  person,  where  the  illness  is  not  dangerous,  should 
be  performed  by  a  Gentile.  Concerning  bleeding.  Meals  after  being  bled. 
The  duty  of  drinking  wine  after  being  bled,  and  advice  to  one  who  has  no 
wine.  On  what  days  one  should  be  bled  and  on  what  days  one  should  not. 
Everything  mentioned  in  Ezekiel  xvi.  4  may  be  done  for  a  woman  lying-in  on 
Sabbath, 282-287 

CHAPTER   XIX. 

MiSHNAS  I.,  II.,  and  III.  Concerning  the  bringing  of  the  knife  for  circum- 
cision on  Sabbath.  When  it  should  be  brought  publicly  and  when  con- 
cealed; when  it  should  be  concealed  before  witnesses.  Public  carrying  of 
the  knife  as  a  proof  of  the  love  of  the  commandment.  Commandments  ac- 
cepted by  Israelites  with  joy  are  even  now  carried  out  joyfully  ;  those  received 
with  protest  are  now  reluctantly  carried  out.  Story  of  Elisha,  "  the  man  of 
wings."  The  Sabbath  may  be  violated  on  account  of  preparations  for  cir- 
i-umcision.  Concerning  the  sucking  out  of  the  blood,  and  bandages  neces- 
sary for  circumcision.  What  Abayi's  mother  told  him.  Rabh's  experience 
with  the  physicians  of  Me'huzza.  Children  who  have  imperfect  circulation 
should  not  be  circumcised  until  in  perfect  health.  What  happened  to  Nathan 
of  Babylon.  How  a  child  should  be  bathed  on  Sabbath.  The  law  concern- 
ing hermaphrodites.  Concerning  a  child  born  at  twilight  and  a  child  born 
without  a  foreskin.  The  story  of  the  child  of  R.  Ada  bar  Ahabha,  who  was 
carried  to  thirteen  circumcisers.  Whether  the  Sabbath  may  be  violated  on 
account  of  a  child  that  had  been  delivered  from  the  side  of  the  mother  (with 
instruments).     When  a  child  is  called  a  miscarriage.     If  a  child  was  to  a 


SYNOPSIS    OF    SUBJECTS.  xlv 

certainty  regularly  born,  it  must  in  the  event  of  its  death  be  mourned  in  the 
regular  manner, 288  305 

MiSHNAS  IV..  v.,  and  VI.  Concerning  one  who  had  two  children  to  be 
circumcised.  Under  what  circumstances  a  child  may  be  circumcised  after 
the  eighth  day  and  until  tlie  twelfth.  The  benedictions  pronounced  by  the 
circumciser,  the  father  of  the  child,  and  the  assembled  guests  after  the 
circumcision, 305-308 

CHAPTER    XX. 

MiSHNAS  I.  to  V.  Concerning  wine-fillers.  Laws  concerning  folding- 
beds,  folding-chairs,  etc.  Question  put  by  R.  Kahana  to  Rabh.  Rabh's 
reply  and  the  explanation  of  same  by  the  Gemara.  The  assertion  that  the 
Law  will  be  forgotten  by  Israel,  and  R.  Simeon's  ben  Jochai  explanation  of 
same.  The  advisability  of  investigating  amongst  the  judges  in  Israel  in 
times  of  trouble.  Corrupt  judges  the  hindrance  to  the  resting  of  the  Lord's 
Shekhina  among  the  children  of  Israel.  Zion's  redemption  must  come 
through  justice.  The  story  of  the  young  scholar  who  was  accused  before  R. 
Ashi.  The  story  told  by  R.  Joseph  concerning  the  goblet  of  wine  served 
him  by  Mar  Uqba.  Concerning  the  soaking  of  laserpitium  on  Sabbath. 
Indisposition  of  R.  A'ha  bar  Joseph,  who  was  cured  by  laserpitium.  Several 
sayings  of  R.  Hisda,  giving  advice.  How  animals  must  be  fed.  Concerning 
straw  on  a  bed.  Concerning  customary  and  unusual  handling  of  things. 
Small  men  should  not  wear  large  shoes  nor  women  torn  shoes,      .      309-321 

CHAPTER    XXI. 

MiSHNAS  I.  to  III.  Concerning  the  lifting  of  a  child  in  connection  with 
things  held  by  the  child,  and  the  lifting  of  a  corpse  in  connection  with  other 
things.  Concerning  a  base  to  a  prohibited  thing.  Concerning  a  stone  at  the 
opening  of  a  barrel  or  on  a  cushion.  Concerning  the  removal  of  husks  and 
bones  from  the  table.  The  decision  of  Abayi  that  the  school  of  Hillel  is 
always  in  conformity  with  R.  Simeon's  opinion,  that  the  law  of  Muktza  has 
no  foundation 322-327 

CHAPTER    XXII. 

MiSHNA  I.  How  much  may  be  saved  from  a  broken  cask.  Concerning 
fruit  which  is  pressed  in  order  to  extract  the  juice.  Bunches  of  grapes  may  be 
pressed  into  the  cooking  pot  direct,  but  not  into  a  bowl.  According  to  biblical 
law  one  is  not  culpable  for  pressing  any  fruit,  with  the  exception  of  grapes 
and  olives.     Witnesses  testifying  from  hearsay  are  not  accredited,     328-331 

MiSHNA  II.  Concerning  eatables  that  are  dressed  with  hot  water.  The 
three  questions  propounded  by  R.  Hyya  bar  Aba :  "  Why  are  the  fowls  of 
Babylon  so  fat  ?  Why  are  the  Babylonians  so  merry  during  the  festivals  ? 
Why  are  the  scholars  of  Babylon  so  well  dressed  ?  "  The  answers  of  R. 
Johanan  :  "  If  a  thing  is  as  certain  to  thee  as  the  fact  that  thou  canst  not 
marry  thy  own  sister,  then  say  it.     Otherwise,  say  it  not  !"        .         331,  332 

MiSHNAS  III.  and  IV.  Concerning  the  breaking  open  of  a  cask  and  eating 
its  contents.     Rabh  shows  his  respect  for  his  pupils  R.    Kahana    and  R. 


xlvi  SYNOPSIS    OF    SUBJECTS. 

Ashi  by  refusing  to  sit  on  a  bolster  when  they  sat  on  the  ground.  Concern- 
ing the  depositing  of  victuals  in  a  cave.  Concerning  the  dusting  of  clothes 
on  Sabbath.  R.  Shesha's,  the  son  of  Idi,  tasteful  arrangement  of  his  cloak. 
The  narrative  of  R.  Dimi  in  the  name  of  and  regarding  Rabbi,      .      332-338 

MiSHNA  V.  Concerning  bathing  in  a  cavern  or  in  the  hot  springs  of  Tibe- 
rias. How  the  wine  of  Purgaitha  and  the  water  of  Deumseth  robbed  the 
Israelites  of  ten  tribes.  How  R.  Jehudah  had  a  pledge  taken  from  Rabba 
bar  bar  Hanna  to  insure  the  latter's  appearance  at  his  college,  and  the 
advantage  gained  by  R.  Jehudah  in  learning  a  new  Halakha,       .        338-341 

CHAPTER    XXIII. 

MiSHNAS  I.  and  II.  Concerning  borrowing  and  lending.  Such  acts  as 
must  be  performed  on  festivals  should  be  performed  in  as  different  a  manner 
to  what  they  are  performed  on  week-days  as  possible.  Concerning  the  count- 
ing of  guests  and  dishes.  Casting  lots  at  meals.  A  man  on  whose  account 
another  is  punished  is  not  admitted  into  the  abode  of  the  Lord,     .      342-346 

MiSHNAS  III.,  IV.,  and  V.  Concerning  the  hiring  of  laborers  on  Sab- 
bath. The  rule  laid  down  by  Abba  Saul.  Concerning  the  transaction  of 
the  affairs  of  a  community  on  Sabbath.  The  betrothal  of  children  on  the 
Sabbath.  The  miracle  which  occurred  to  a  man  who  would  not  mend  a  fence 
of  his  field  on  Sabbath.  Concerning  waiting  at  the  techoom  on  account  of 
a  bride  or  a  corpse.  Concerning  the  performance  of  all  necessities  for  a 
corpse  on  Sabbath, 346-353 

MiSHNA  VI.  Closing  the  eyes  of  a  corpse  on  Sabbath.  Concerning  the 
closing  of  the  eyes  of  a  dying  person  on  a  week-day.  On  account  of  a  living 
child,  only  one  day  old,  the  Sabbath  may  be  violated;  but  not  even  for  David, 
King  of  Israel,  if  he  be  dead,  may  this  be  done.  A  living  child  one  day  old 
need  not  be  guarded  from  the  attacks  of  rats,  but  even  the  dead  body  of  Og, 
King  of  Bashan,  must  be  guarded  from  such  attacks.  Practise  charity 
when  the  opportunity  presents  itself  and  when  it  is  within  thy  reach. 
Poverty  is  compared  to  a  wheel  constantly  turning.  He  who  pities  living 
creatures  is  pitied  also  in  Heaven.  The  explanation  of  many  verses  in  Ec- 
clesiastes  regarding  the  human  body.  Why  R.  Hanina  did  not  weep  over 
the  death  of  his  daughter.  There  are  si.x  kinds  of  tears  which  are  shed  : 
three  good  and  three  bad.  The  dispute  of  Joshua  ben  Kar'ha  with  the 
eunuch.  Why  Barzillai  was  a  liar.  Worms  are  as  annoying  to  a  corpse  as 
a  needle  is  to  excrescences  on  the  flesh.  The  soul  of  a  man  mourns  for  the 
body  seven  days.  The  narrative  relating  to  R.  Jehudah  and  his  actions 
towards  a  stranger  who  died  in  his  vicinity.  "  Return  thy  soul  as  clean  as 
it  was  given  thee,"  and  the  parable  connected  with  the  statement.  The  con- 
versation between  R.  Na'hman  and  the  dead  body  of  R.  Ahai  ben  Yashi. 
The  bones  of  a  man  who  had  no  jealousy  in  his  heart  will  not  rot.  The  souls 
of  the  righteous  are  ensconced  underneath  the  throne  of  honor  a  twelvemonth 
after  leaving  the  body.  "  Make  my  funeral  sermon  impressive,  for  I  shall  be 
present."  To  repent  one  day  before  death  means  to  repent  every  day,  lest 
the  morrow  bring  death.  "  At  all  times  let  thy  garments  be  white,"  and  the 
parable  connected  with  it 353-362 


SYNOPSIS   OF   SUBJECTS.  xlvii 

CHAPTER   XXIV. 

MiSHNA  I.  Concerning  one  who  was  overtaken  by  dusk  on  the  eve  of 
Sabbath  while  on  the  road.  The  Sabbath  rest  must  be  kept  inviolate  as  far 
as  one's  animal  is  concerned,  but  one  is  not  responsible  for  the  Sabbath  rest 
of  a  Gentile.  An  additional  statement  concerning  the  Sabbath  rest,  which 
the  sages  would  not  reveal.  On  the  day  the  eighteen  precautionary  ordi- 
nances were  instituted,  according  to  the  opinion  of  some,  the  measure  of  laws 
was  made  heaping  full,  while,  according  to  others,  it  was  not  filled  enough. 
The  examples  connected  with  this  statement.  Why  R.  Gamaliel  allowed  his 
ass  to  drop  dead  under  a  load,  3^3-i(>7 

MiSHNAS  II.,  III.,  and  IV.  Concerning  the  untieing  of  straw  for  cattle. 
Concerning  the  cramming  of  camels,  calves,  poultry,  and  doves.  Kneading 
on  Sabbath.  The  fate  of  those  born  on  the  different  days  of  tlie  week,  accord- 
ing to  the  diary  of  R.  Jehoshua  ben  Levi.  The  seven  planets  guiding  the 
destiny  of  man.  Designation  (Muktza)  on  account  of  filth  and  on  account  of 
expensive  articles.     Concerning  the  cutting  up  of  pumpkins  and  carrion, 

3,(>7-37(> 

MiSHNA  V,  What  vows  may  be  annulled  on  Sabbath.  Whether  a  vow 
may  be  annulled  before  the  expiration  of  twenty-four  hours  after  one  hears  it 
pronounced,  or  only  during  the  same  day.  How  consultation  concerning 
vows  must  be  had.  Should  aChacham  (sage)  only  be  consulted,  or  will  three 
ordinary  men  suffice  for  that  purpose  ?  How  vows  are  to  be  annulled  on 
Sabbath.  By  thought  or  by  word  of  mouth  ;  may  one  say  merely  :  "  Go,  eat 
and  drink  !  "  The  sages  comply  with  the  request  of  Mar  Zutraand  annul  his 
vow  on  a  Sabbath.  How  water  for  ritual  purposes  may  be  measured  on 
Sabbath.  What  happened  to  Ula  at  the  house  of  the  Exilarch  regarding  the 
measuring  of  water  in  a  bath, y7(>-37^ 

CUSTOMARY   CONCLUDING  PRAYER. 
Epigraph.     Translator's  remarks 379,  380 

APPENDIX.* 

Concerning  the  eighteen  regulations  enacted  in  the  attic  of  Hananiah  ben 
Hizkyah  ben  Garon.  Their  importance  and  influence  on  the  government  of 
the  Jews.     The  degeneracy  of  priestdom 381-390 

*  We  would  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  appendi.\  of  this  volume,  which 
will  prove  interesting  to  the  general  reader  and  present  something  heretofore  un- 
published to  the  student  of  the  Talmud. 


TRACT   SABBATH. 


CHAPTER    XL 

REGULATIONS  CONCERNING  THROWING  FROM  ONE  GROUND  INTO 

ANOTHER. 

MISHNA:  One  who  throws  a  thing  from  private  into  public 
or  from  public  into  private  ground  is  culpable.  From  private 
into  private  ground,  by  way  of  public  ground,  R.  Aqiba  holds 
him  to  be  culpable,  but  the  sages  declare  him  free.  How  so? 
If  two  balconies  face  each  other  across  a  street,  one  who  trans- 
fers or  throws  something  from  one  into  the  other  is  free;  if  the 
two  balconies,  however,  are  in  the  same  building,  he  who  trans- 
fers a  thing  from  one  into  the  other  is  culpable,  but  he  who 
throws  is  free ;  because  the  work  of  the  Levites  (in  the  taber- 
nacle) was  as  follows:  From  two  wagons  facing  each  other  in 
public  ground  boards  were  transferred,  but  not  thrown  from  one 
into  the  other. 

GEMARA:  Let  us  see!  Throwing  is  but  the  offspring 
of  transferring.  Where  is  transfer  itself  mentioned  in  the 
Scriptures?  Said  R.  Johanan :  ''It  is  written  [Ex.  xxxvi.  6]: 
'  And  Moses  gave  the  command  and  they  caused  it  to  be  pro- 
claimed throughout  the  camp,'  etc.  Where  was  Moses  sitting  ? 
In  the  quarters  of  the  Levites.  The  quarters  of  the  Levites 
was  public  ground  (because  all  the  people  were  received  there 
by  Moses).  And  Moses  said  unto  Israel :  *  Ye  shall  not  trans- 
fer anything  from  your  quarters  (which  was  private  ground) 
into  these  quarters.'  "  We  have  found,  then,  transfer  from 
within,  but  where  do  we  find  transfer  from  without  ?  It  is  a 
logical  conclusion,  that  transfer  from  within  is  the  same  as 
transfer  from  without.  Still  he  calls  transfer  from  within  the 
principal  act  and  transfer  from  without  but  the  offspring.  Now, 
if  transferring  from  within  and  transferring  from  without  in- 
volve the  same  degree  of  culpability,  why  does  he  call  the  one 

VOL.  M.  —  I  189 


ipo  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

a  principal  and  the  other  an  offspring  ?  For  the  following 
reason :  If  one  commit  two  principal  acts  of  labor,  or  two  off- 
springs of  two  different  acts  of  labor,  he  becomes  bound  to 
bring  two  sin-offerings ;  but  if  he  commits  one  principal  act 
and  one  offspring  of  the  same  act  of  labor,  he  becomes  bound 
to  bring  only  one  sin-offering. 

Whence  do  we  know  that  if  one  throw  a  thing  four  ells  in 
public  ground  he  is  culpable  ?  All  that  is  said  about  four  ells  in 
public  ground  is  traditional. 

R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  Samuel :  The  wood-gath- 
erer's sin  [mentioned  in  Numbers  xv.  32-35]  consisted  in  carry- 
ing four  ells  in  public  ground.  We  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  how- 
ever, that  he  pulled  out  sticks  growing  in  the  ground.  R.  Aha 
b.  R.  Jacob  said :  He  gathered  the  sticks  and  bound  them  into 
bundles.  What  difference  is  there  in  the  acts  ?  (Why  this  dis- 
sension ?)  The  difference  is,  as  we  were  taught  in  the  name  of 
Rabh,  who  says:  "  I  found  a  mysterious  paper  in  the  possession 
of  my  uncle,  R.  Hyya,  upon  which  was  written :  *  Aissi  ben 
Jehudah  said:  The  principal  acts  of  labor  are  forty  less  one. 
One  of  them  does  not  involve  culpability.  R.  Jehudah  holds,  that 
carrying  in  public  ground  is  not  this  one  act  and  the  Boraitha 
holds  that  pulling  out  of  the  ground  is  not  that  one,  and  R. 
Aha  b.  R.  Jacob  holds  that  binding  into  bundles  is  not  the 
act  which  involves  culpability. '  Each  one  of  these  three  was 
certain  that  if  a  man  committed  any  of  the  acts  mentioned  by 
each  he  was  undoubtedly  culpable." 

The  rabbis  taught:  The  name  of  the  wood-gatherer  was 
Zelophchad,  and  so  it  is  written  [Numb.  xv.  32]:  "  And  while 
the  children  of  Israel  were  in  the  wilderness  they  found  a  man," 
etc.,  and  further  on  [ibid,  xxvii.  3]  it  is  written:  "  Our  father 
died  in  the  wilderness," tic,  etc.,  "  but  in  his  own  sin  he  died," 
etc.,  an  analogy  of  the  word  wilder7iess.  As  by  "our  father  "  is 
meant  Zelophchad,  so  also  the  name  of  the  wood-gatherer  was 
Zelophchad.  So  said  R.  Aqiba.  Said  to  him  R.  Jehudah  b. 
Bathyra:  "Aqiba!  Whether  your  statement  be  true  or  false, 
you  will  have  to  answer  for  it  at  the  time  of  the  divine  judgment ; 
for  if  it  be  true,  you  disclosed  the  name  of  the  man  whom 
the  Scriptures  desired  to  shield,  and  thus  you  brought  him 
into  infamy,  and  if  it  be  false  you  slandered  a  man  who  was 
upright."  The  same  case  occurred  in  the  following:  It  is  writ- 
ten [Numb.  xii.  9]:  "  And  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled 
against  them,"  etc.      From  this  wc  learn  that  Aaron  also  became 


TRACT    SABBATH.  191 

leprous.  So  said  R.  Aqiba.  Said  to  him  R.  Jehudah  b.  Ba- 
thyra:  "  Aqiba!  Whether  your  statement  be  true  or  false,  you 
will  have  to  answer  for  it  at  the  divine  judgment;  for  if  it  be 
true,  }-ou  disclosed  a  thing  the  Scriptures  desired  to  conceal, 
and  thus  )'ou  brought  infamy  upon  Aaron,  and  if  it  be  false,  you 
slandered  a  man  who  was  upright."  But  the  Scriptures  say: 
"  And  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled  against  them."  This 
signifies  only  that  Aaron  was  included  among  those  against 
whom  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled. 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha  according  to  the  opinion  of 
R.  Aqiba:"  Aaron  also  became  leprous,  as  it  is  written:  '  And 
Aaron  turned  toward  Miriam,  and  behold  she  was  leprous,' 
which  implies  that  at  the  moment  when  he  turned  toward  Miriam 
he  was  cured  of  his  leprosy  and  perceived  it  in  Miriam." 

Said  Resh  Lakish :  He  who  suspects  an  innocent  man  is  pun- 
ished in  the  flesh,  as  it  is  written  [Ex.  iv.  i] :  "  But  behold,  they 
will  not  believe  me,"  and  it  was  known  to  the  Holy  One, 
blessed  be  He,  that  Israel  will  believe,  and  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses:  "  They  are  believers  and  they  are  children  of  believers, 
but  thou,  I  know,  wilt  finally  not  believe."  They  are  believers, 
as  it  is  written  [ibid.  iv.  31]:  "And  the  people  believed." 
They  are  children  of  believers,  as  it  is  written  [Gen.  xv.  6] : 
"  And  he  believed  in  the  Lord."  Thou  wilt  finally  not  believe, 
as  it  is  written  [Numb.  xx.  12]:  "  Moses  and  Aaron,  because  ye 
have  not  confided  in  me;  "  and  whence  do  we  know  that  he  was 
punished  in  the  flesh,  as  it  is  written  [Ex.  iv.  6]:  "And  the 
Lord  said  furthermore  unto  him,  Do  put  thy  hand  into  thy 
bosom ;  and  he  put  his  hand  into  his  bosom ;  and  when  he  took 
it  out,  behold,  his  hand  was  leprous,  white  as  snow." 

Rabha  said,  according  to  others,  R.  Jose  b.  Hanina:  Reward 
for  merit,  destined  for  a  man,  comes  to  him  more  quickly  and  in 
a  greater  degree  than  retribution  for  wickedness,  for  in  the  case 
of  Moses  we  see  it  written  [Exod.  iv.  6]:  "And  he  put  his 
hand  into  his  bosom;  and  when  he  took  it  out,  behold,  his  hand 
was  leprous,  white  as  snow."  But  the  reward  was,  as  it  is  writ- 
ten [ibid.  7],  "  And  when  he  pulled  it  out  of  his  bosom,  behold, 
it  was  turned  again  as  his  other  flesh."  The  reason  that  the 
verse  repeats  "  pulled  it  out  of  his  bosotn,"  is  to  show,  that  the 
hand  had  become  cured  while  in  the  bosom  (and  thus  the  reward 
was  given  more  quickly  and  eff"ectively).  It  is  written  [Ex.  vii. 
12]:  "Aaron's  staff  swallowed  up  their  staves."  Said  R. 
Elazar:  "  This  was  a  miracle  within  a  miracle,  for  Aaron's  staff 


192 


THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 


did  not  swallow  up  the  staves  (of  the  Egyptian  magicians),  which 
had  become  serpents,  while  it  was  itself  a  serpent,  but  after  it 
was  become  a  staff  again," 

*'  From  private  ground  into  private  ground,''  etc.  Rabha 
propounded  a  question:  "Shall  we  assume  that  the  point  of 
difference  is  in  the  opinion  relating  to  whether  the  surrounding 
of  a  thing  by  the  atmosphere  of  a  certain  place  makes  the  thing 
equal  to  being  deposited  in  that  place  or  not  ? "  And  if  this  is 
the  point  of  difference,  it  must  follow  that  the  Mishna  treats  of 
a  case  where  the  object  thrown  was  at  no  time  above  ten  spans 
from  the  ground  (because  above  ten  spans  no  public  ground 
exists).  Those  who  deem  it  a  culpable  act,  do  so,  because 
they  hold  that  the  object,  being  surrounded  by  the  air  of  the 
public  ground,  through  which  it  passed,  makes  it  equal  to  being 
deposited  therein,  while  those  who  do  not  deem  it  a  culpable  act 
are  not  of  this  opinion ;  but  if  the  object  thrown  was  above  ten 
spans  from  the  ground,  do  both  sides  agree  that  the  thrower  is 
not  culpable  ?  Or  shall  we  assume  that  both  sides  do  not  differ 
as  to  the  object  thrown  being  equal  to  being  deposited  in  the 
place,  the  atmosphere  of  which  surrounded  it,  agreeing  that 
such  is  the  case;  but  their  point  of  difference  is  as  to  whether 
throwing  is  equal  to  transfer  or  not  ?  He  who  holds  that  the 
thrower  is  culpable  does  so  because  he  considers  throwing  equal 
to  transfer  by  hand,  and  as  transfer  makes  a  man  culpable,  even 
if  it  was  accomplished  above  ten  spans  from  the  ground,  it 
also  applies  to  throwing;  but  he  who  holds  that  the  thrower  is 
not  culpable,  does  so  because  he  does  not  consider  throwing 
equal  to  transfer  by  hand.  And  the  case  treated  of  by  the 
Mishna  is  one  where  the  throwing  was  done  above  ten  spans 
from  the  ground?  Said  R.  Joseph:  This  question  was  also 
propounded  by  R.  Hisda,  and  R.  Hamnuna  decided  it  from  the 
following  Boraitha:  "  From  private  into  private  ground,  by  way 
of  public  ground  itself,  R.  Aqiba  makes  him  culpable,  but  the 
sages  declare  him  free."  Now,  if  he  says,  "  by  way  of  public 
ground  itself,''  it  implies  that  it  was  below  ten  spans  from  the 
ground.  Let  us  then  see  wherein  was  the  difference  of  opinion. 
Shall  we  say  that  it  was  a  case  of  transfer  by  hand  and  still 
the  one  who  holds  him  culpable  does  so  because  it  was  below  ten 
spans,  but  if  it  was  above  ten  spans  he  would  concede  that  he 
was  not  culpable  ?  How  can  this  be  ?  Did  not  R.  Elazar  say: 
He  who  transfers  a  burden  above  ten  spans  from  the  ground  is 
culpable,  because  thus  were  burdens  transferred  by  the  sons  of 


TRACT    SABBATH.  193 

Kehath  "  ?  Therefore  we  must  assume  that  the  Boraitha  treats 
of  a  case  of  throwing  and  not  of  transfer  by  hand,  and  hence 
one  holds,  that  an  object  surrounded  by  the  atmosphere  of  a 
certain  place  below  ten  spans  from  the  ground  is  equal  to  an 
object  deposited  in  that  place,  while  the  other  holds  that  such 
is  not  the  case.  Conclude  then  from  this  that  the  Mishna  treats 
of  a  case  where  the  throwing  was  done  below  ten  spans  from  the 
ground. 

The  above  teaching,  however,  is  not  in  accord  with  the  opin- 
ion of  R.  Elazar,  for  he  said :  R.  Aqiba  makes  the  thrower  cul- 
pable even  when  the  throw-ing  was  done  above  ten  spans  from 
the  ground;  but  for  what  purpose  does  the  Boraitha  state  "  pub- 
lic ground  itself  ?  Merely  to  show  the  firmness  of  the  rabbis 
in  declaring  one  free,  even  when  he  transferred  a  thing  by  hand 
through  public  ground. 

All  that  was  said  above  is  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  R. 
Helkiah  b.  Tubhi,  because  he  said:  "  If  the  throwing  was  below 
three  spans  from  the  ground,  all  agree  that  the  thrower  is  culpa- 
ble; if  above  ten  spans,  all  agree  that  he  is  not  culpable;  but  if 
the  throwing  was  done  between  three  and  ten  spans  above  the 
ground,  then  the  difference  of  opinion  between  R.  Aqiba  and 
the  sages  arises."  We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha  in  support  of 
R.  Helkiah:  "  Below  three  all  agree  that  one  is  culpable;  above 
ten  all  agree  (that  only  a  rabbinical  prohibition  exists)  as  a  pre- 
cautionary measure  (because  no  Erubh  was  made).''^  If  the  two 
premises  belonged  to  the  thrower,  he  may  throw  to  start  with. 
From  three  to  ten  spans  is  where  the  point  of  difference  between 
R.  Aqiba  and  the  sages  arises. 

It  is  certain,  that  if  it  is  one's  intention  to  throw  eight  ells 
and  he  throws  only  four,  one  is  culpable ;  because  it  is  equivalent 
to  the  case  where  one  intends  to  write  the  name  Simeon  and 
only  writes  Sim  (for  Sim  alone  is  also  a  name,  and  four  ells  is  the 
prescribed  distance  for  throwing);  but  what  is  not  certain  is,  if 
one  intended  to  throw  only  four  ells  and  threw  eight,  what  is  his 
case?  Shall  we  assume  that  he  threw  the  prescribed  distance  and 
is  thus  culpable,  or,  because  the  object  did  not  reach  the  desired 
destination,  he  is  not  culpable  ?  The  answer  was,  that  accord- 
ing to  this  question  Rabhina  asked  R.  Ashi,  and  the  latter 
answered  that  no  culpability  can  exist  unless  he  intended  that 
the  object  should  remain  wherever  it  happened  to  alight,  i.e.,  if 

*  The  law  concerning  Erubhin  will  be  explained  in  Tract  Erubhin. 


194  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

the  man  intended  to  throw  eight  ells  and  threw  only  four  he  is 
also  not  culpable,  and  the  assertion  that  the  last-named  act  is 
equivalent  to  writing  Sim  when  the  intention  was  to  write 
Simeon,  which  according  to  the  succeeding  Mishna  is  an  act 
involving  culpability,  does  not  hold  good ;  for  he  cannot  write 
Simeon  without  first  writing  Sim,  but  surely  he  can  throw  eight 
ells  without  previously  throwing  four  ells. 

The  rabbis  taught:  If  one  threw  from  public  into  public 
ground  and  private  ground  was  in  between,  and  the  four  ells 
commenced  and  ended  in  the  two  public  grounds,  including  the 
private  ground,  he  is  culpable ;  but  if  he  threw  less  than  four  ells 
he  is  not  culpable.  What  news  does  this  convey  to  us  ?  It  is 
to  inform  us,  that  the  different  premises  are  counted  together  and 
that  the  culpability  arises  not  from  the  fact  that  the  atmosphere 
of  the  private  ground,  having  surrounded  the  object  thrown, 
makes  that  object  equal  to  having  been  deposited  in  that  private 
ground ;  because  that  ordinance  does  not  hold  good,  and  the 
culpability  arises  merely  from  throwing  four  ells  in  public 
ground. 

R.  Samuel  b.  Jehudah,  quoting  R.  Abba,  who  quoted  R. 
Huna  in  the  name  of  Rabh,  said:  If  one  transferred  an  object 
for  four  ells  in  a  roofed  public  ground,  he  is  not  culpable.  Why 
so  ?  Because  this  public  ground  is  not  equal  to  the  public 
ground  under  the  standards  in  the  desert  traversed  by  the  Israel- 
ites. This  is  not  so!  We  know  that  the  wagons  which  carried 
the  boards  of  the  tabernacle  were  roofed,  and  Rabh  said  in  the 
name  of  R.  Hyya  that  the  ground  beneath  the  wagons,  between 
them,  or  alongside  of  them,  was  all  public.  Rabh  means  to 
state  that  the  wagons  were  not  actually  covered,  but  that  the 
boards  were  placed  crossways  on  them  in  layers,  and  between 
every  layer  there  was  uncovered  space,  and  that  space  was,  in 
the  opinion  of  Rabh,  public  ground. 

The  rabbis  taught :  The  boards  used  at  the  tabernacle  were 
one  ell  thick  and  sloped  gradually  until  they  attained  the  thick- 
ness of  one  finger  at  one  end,  as  it  is  written  [Ex.  xxvi.  24] : 
"  And  they  shall  be  closely  joined  together  on  top  by  means  of 
one  ring,"  and  in  another  passage  [Joshua  iii.  16]  it  is  written, 
"  failed,  were  cut  off."  *  So  said  R.  Jehuda.  Hence  it  is  evi- 
dent that  on  top  the  boards  were  only  one  finger  thick.  R. 
Nehemiah  says:  "  They  were  also  one  ell  thick  on  top,  as  it  is 

*  The  Hebrew  term  for  "  cut  off  "  in  that  passage  is  Tarau,  and  for  "  joined  "  in 
the  previous  passage  it  is  "  Tamim"  ;  hence  the  comparison  by  analogy.  ' 


TRACT    SABBATH.  195 

written  [ibid,  ibid.],  'joined  together,'  and  the  '  together  '  means 
tiiat  they  were  to  be  the  same  on  top  and  on  the  bottom. 
But  it  says  '  joined  '  (Tamim)I  The  Tamim  here  signifies  that 
they  must  be  whole,  unbroken. 

The  school  of  R.  Ishmael  taught :  To  what  can  the  tabernacle 
be  compared  ?  To  a  woman  going  to  market,  whose  dress  hangs 
down  and  drags  on  the  ground  {i.e.,  the  curtains  were  hanging 
down  and  dragging  on  the  ground). 

The  rabbis  taught :  The  boards  of  the  tabernacle  came  to  a 
point  and  the  thresholds  contained  sockets  on  which  the  boards 
were  fitted.  The  hooks  and  fillets  of  the  curtains  appeared  like 
stars  in  the  sky. 

The  rabbis  taught:  The  lower  curtains  were  of  blue,  purple, 
and  scarlet  yarn  and  of  twisted  linen  thread,  and  the  upper  cur- 
tains were  of  goats'  hair,  and  more  skill  was  necessary  to  make 
the  curtains  of  goats'  hair  than  of  the  first-named  materials,  for 
concerning  the  lower  curtains  it  is  written  :  "  And  all  the  women 
that  were  wise-hearted  spun  with  their  hands,  and  they  brought 
that  which  they  had  spun  of  the  blue,  and  of  the  purple,  and  of 
the  scarlet  yarn,  and  of  the  linen  thread";  but  concerning  the 
upper  curtains  it  is  written  [ibid.  26\\  "And  all  the  women 
whose  hearts  stirred  them  up  in  wisdom  spun  the  goats'  hair." 
And  we  have  learned  in  the  name  of  R.  Nehemiah,  "  The  goats' 
hair  was  woven  right  from  the  goats'  backs  without  being 
shorn." 

"  If  the  two  balconies,''  etc.  Said  Rabh  in  the  name  of  R. 
Hyya:  "  The  space  between  the  wagons,  beneath  the  wagons, 
and  alongside  of  them  is  public  ground."  Said  Abayi :  "The 
space  between  two  wagons  was  the  length  of  another  wagon  ? 
What  is  the  length  of  a  wagon  ?  Five  ells.  Rabha  said  the 
sides  of  the  wagon  {i.e.,  the  width  between  the  sides)  was  the 
width  of  a  wagon.  What  is  that  width  ?  Two  and  one-half 
ells.  Now,  we  know  that  the  width  of  a  way  in  public  ground 
is  sixteen  ells.  Whence  do  we  adduce  this  ?  If  we  adduce  tli"3 
from  the  case  of  the  tabernacle,  it  should  only  be  fifteen  ells; 
(for  the  width  of  two  wagons  together  with  the  space  between 
them  was  fifteen  ells).  The  answer  is:  There  was  another  ell 
additional  between  the  two  wagons  where  the  Levite  walked  in 
order  that  he  might  watch  the  wagons  and  adjust  anything  that 
might  come  out  of  place." 

MISHNA  :  One  who  takes  anything  from,  or  places  anything 
upon  a  sand-heap,  dug  out  of  a  pit  or  a  stone  that  is  ten  spans 


196  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

high  and  four  spans  wide,  is  culpable.  If  the  sand-heap  or  the 
stone  is  below  that  height,  he  is  free. 

GEMARA:  Why  does  the  Mishna  say  a  sand-heap,  dug  out 
of  a  pit,  or  a  stone  ?  Why  not  the  pit  or  the  stone  itself  ?  (Then 
we  would  know  both  the  height  and  depth  which  must  not  be 
used  for  the  placing  of  a  thing.)  This  was  said  in  support  of 
the  statement  of  R.  Johanan,  viz. :  That  the  sand-heap  dug  out 
of  a  pit  is  counted  in  with  the  depth  of  the  pit  as  to  height  to 
complete  the  ten  spans.  We  have  also  learned  thus  in  a  Bora- 
itha:  One  must  not  draw  water  from  a  pit  in  public  ground 
which  is  ten  spans  deep  and  four  spans  wide,  unless  he  has  made 
a  railing  round  the  pit  that  is  ten  spans  high.  He  must  also  not 
drink  from  the  pit  unless  he  put  his  head  and  the  larger  portion 
of  his  body  into  it.  The  pit  and  the  sand-heap  dug  out  of  the 
pit  are  counted  in  with  it  to  complete  the  ten  spans. 

R.  Mordecai  asked  of  Rabha :  What  is  the  law  regarding  one 
who  threw  a  thing  on  a  post  ten  spans  high  and  four  spans 
wide,  standing  in  public  ground  ?  Shall  we  assume  that  he  is 
culpable  because  he  removed  the  thing  unlawfully  and  also 
deposited  it  unlawfully  {i.e.,  from  public  ground  into  private), 
or  that  he  is  not  culpable  because  the  object  which  lighted  on 
the  post  came  from  ground  which  is  under  no  jurisdiction, 
being  above  ten  spans  from  the  ground  ?  (If  the  man  had  the 
intention  to  throw  the  object  on  top  of  the  post,  he  must  have 
thrown  it  high  up  into  the  air,  and  before  lighting  on  the  post  it 
passed  through  space  above  ten  spans  from  the  ground,  and  that 
space  is  regarded  as  ground  under  no  jurisdiction,  therefore  he 
is  not  culpable  ?)  Rabha  answered:  "  This  is  explained  in  the 
Mishna."  R.  Mordecai  then  went  to  R.  Joseph  and  asked  the 
same  question.  He  received  the  same  answer:  "  It  is  explained 
in  the  Mishna."  Thereupon  he  came  to  Abayi  with  the  same 
question,  and  again  received  the  same  answer.  Said  R.  Mor- 
decai to  Abayi:  "Do  ye  all  spit  with  the  same  spittle?" 
Answered  Abayi :  Dost  not  thou  think  that  the  Mishna  explains 
it  ?  Did  Tiot  the  Mishna  say,  "  One  who  takes  from  or  places 
upon"?  Rejoined  R.  Mordecai:  "  Perhaps  the  Mishna  treats 
of  a  needle  which  can  be  placed  on  a  level  with  the  ten  spans 
height."  Said  Abayi:  "  A  needle  must  also  be  lifted  above  the 
level."  Said  R.  Mordecai  again:  "It  can  be  placed  without 
being  lifted  above  the  level,  because  every  stone  has  some  crev- 
ices that  are  lower  than  the  surface  of  the  stone  and  the  needle 
can  be  placed  in  one  of  the  crevices." 


TRACT   SABBATH.  197 

R.  Johanan  propounded  a  question:  "What  is  the  law 
regarding  a  man  who  throws  a  cake  of  earth  (four  spans  square 
and  one  span  deep)  into  a  pit  exactly  ten  spans  deep  and  four 
spans  square  ?  Shall  we  say,  that  he  is  culpable  because  he 
threw  the  cake  of  earth  into  the  pit,  which  was  still  ten  spans 
deep  and  therefore  private  ground,  or  that  he  is  not  culpable 
because  as  soon  as  the  cake  reached  the  bottom  of  the  pit  it 
lessened  the  pit's  height  to  nine  spans,  and  thus  made  the  pit 
unclaimed  ground?"  Let  R.  Johanan  decide  this  question 
himself  by  what  he  said  in  the  following  Mishna:  "  If  one  throw 
a  thing  from  a  distance  of  four  ells  against  the  wall,  and  it 
strikes  the  wall  at  a  height  of  over  ten  spans  from  the  ground, 
he  is  free,  but  if  below  ten  spans  from  the  ground  he  is  culpable, 
because  one  who  throws  a  thing  to  the  ground  at  a  distance  of 
four  ells  is  culpable."  We  have  investigated  the  case;  how  can 
he  be  culpable  if  the  object  thrown  did  not  adhere  to  the  wall  ? 
And  R.  Johanan  answered:  "  The  case  was  one  of  a  soft  date, 
which  ^:V/ adhere  to  the  wall."  Now,  if  the  conclusion  is  that 
the  cake  of  earth  lessened  the  depth  of  the  pit,  the  date  which 
adhered  to  the  wall  also  lessened  the  distance  of  four  ells  from 
where  the  date  was  thrown,  and  he  says  that  the  man  is  culpable  ? 
The  answer  was:  In  the  case  of  the  date  the  thrower  did  not 
intend  that  the  date  should  adhere  to  the  wall  permanently, 
while  in  the  case  of  the  pit  the  cake  of  earth  remained  in  the 
pit  permanently,  as  intended  by  the  thrower. 

Abayi  said :  If  a  man  throw  a  mat  into  a  pit  ten  spans  deep 
and  eight  spans  wide  in  public  ground  he  is  culpable.  If  he, 
however,  placed  the  mat  into  the  pit  so  that  the  pit  was  divided 
into  two  equal  parts,  he  is  not  culpable.  (The  latter  decree 
informs  us  of  two  facts :  Firstly,  that  although  the  mat  was 
placed  in  the  pit,  while  the  pit  was  still  of  suflficient  size  to  con- 
stitute it  private  ground  and  was  only  diminished  at  the  time  the 
mat  was  placed  into  it,  the  man  is  not  culpable,  and  secondly, 
that  the  mat  takes  up  suf!icient  space  to  make  the  two  pits 
caused  by  division  less  than  four  spans  wide  each.)  Now,  if, 
according  to  Abayi,  it  is  a  certainty  that  the  mat  is  sufficient  to 
nullify  the  enclosures  necessary  for  the  designation  of  private 
ground,  so  much  the  more  is  this  the  case  with  the  cake  of  earth 
previously  mentioned,  but  according  to  R.  Johanan,  to  whom  it 
is  even  questionable  whether  the  cake  of  earth  can  produce  that 
effect,  surely  a  mat  cannot. 

Abayi  said  again:  If  a  man  throw  an  object  into  a  pit  ten 


igS  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

spans  deep  and  four  spans  wide,  filled  with  water  and  standing 
in  public  ground,  he  is  culpable,  but  if  the  pit  was  filled  with 
fruit,  he  is  not  culpable ;  because  water  does  not  annul  the  en- 
closures necessary  for  the  designation  of  private  ground,  while 
fruit  does  (the  reason  is  that  an  object  thrown  into  a  pit  of  water 
falls  to  the  ground  in  spite  of  the  water  [viz.  :  a  stone  or  iron], 
while  in  a  pit  filled  with  fruit  it  rests  on  top).*  We  also  learned 
the  same  in  a  Boraitha,  in  the  name  of  R.  Simeon:  "  Water 
does  not  annul  the  enclosures  necessary  for  the  designation  of 
private  ground." 

MISHNA:  If  one  throw  a  thing  (a  soft  date)  from  a  distance 
of  four  ells  against  the  wall,  and  it  strike  the  wall  at  a  height  of 
over  ten  spans  from  the  ground,  he  is  free ;  but  if  it  strike  the 
wall  below  ten  spans  from  the  ground,  he  is  culpable ;  because 
one  who  throws  a  thing  to  the  ground  at  a  distance  of  four  ells 
is  culpable. 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Jehudah,  quoting  Rabh  in  the  name  of 
R.  Hyya:  If  one  throw  a  thing  at  a  distance  of  four  ells  against 
a  wall,  and  the  thing  rested  in  a  hole  in  the  wall  above  ten  spans 
from  the  ground,  the  law  in  his  case  is  decided  differently  by  R. 
Meir  and  the  sages,  viz.  :  R.  Meir  holds,  that  any  object  (like  a 
hole)  capable  of  being  enlarged,  must  be  looked  upon  as  having 
been  already  enlarged,  and  therefore  the  man  is  culpable.  The 
sages,  however,  hold  that  such  is  not  the  case;  everything  must 
be  regarded  in  its  actual  condition. 

R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  If  a  man  throw  a 
thing  upon  a  sand-heap  four  ells  wide  and  sloping  up  to  a  height 
of  ten  spans,  he  is  culpable,  provided  the  thing  rested  on  the 
highest  point  of  the  heap,  because  the  heap  is  regarded  as  being 
ten  spans  high  in  its  entire  length.  The  same  we  have  learned 
in  a  Boraitha  in  the  name  of  R.  Hanina  ben  Gamaliel. 

MISHNA:  If  one  threw  an  object  within  four  ells  (in  public 
ground)  and  the  object  rolled  to  a  greater  distance,  he  is  free;  if 
he  threw  a  thing  outside  of  four  ells  and  it  rolled  back  within 
four  ells,  he  is  culpable. 

GEMARA :  Why  should  a  man  be  culpable  in  the  latter 
clause  of  the  Mishna;  the  object  thrown  did  not  rest  outside 
of  four  ells  if  it  rolled  back  within  the  prescribed  limit  ?     Said 

*  So  explains  Rashi  (Isaakides) ;  we  think,  however,  the  reason  that  water  does 
not  annul  the  enclosures  is,  because  water  belongs  to  the  public  and  anyone  can  draw 
it  out,  and  therefore  it  is  equal  to  not  bcinjj  there  ;  but,  fruits  must  belong  to  a  pri- 
vate individual  and  this  makes  it  private  ground. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  199 

R.  Johanan :  The  Mishna  treats  of  a  case  where  the  object 
thrown  came  in  contact  with  an  obstacle  by  means  of  which  it 
rolled  back,  and  therefore  it  rested  for  a  moment  outside  of  four 
ells. 

Rabha  said:  "  In  the  opinion  of  the  sages,  who  differ  with 
R.  Aqiba  concerning  his  decree,  that  an  object  surrounded  by 
the  atmosphere  of  a  certain  place  makes  the  object  equal  to 
having  been  deposited  in  that  place,  a  man  who  threw  a  thing 
from  private  into  private  ground  by  way  of  public  ground,  even 
below  three  spans  from  the  ground,  is  not  culpable  unless  the 
thing  thrown  rested  for  a  moment  at  least  on  the  public  ground." 
Mareimar  sat  and  repeated  the  above  decree.  Said  Rabhina : 
"  Does  not  our  Mishna  say  the  same,  through  the  declaration  of 
R.  Johanan,  who  decrees  that  the  Mishna  holds  a  man  culpable 
only  if  the  object  thrown  by  the  man  rests  at  its  destination  for 
a  moment  ?"  Answered  Mareimar:  Thou  speakest  of  a  rolling 
thing  (which  is  carried  along  by  the  wind  and  it  is  not  known 
when  it  will  stand  still).  Such  a  thing  cannot  be  regarded  as 
resting,  although  ii:  is  below  three  spans  from  the  ground,  but  in 
our  case  it  is  different.  The  thing  was  thrown  (and  was  not 
rolled  by  the  wind);  so  we  might  assume  that  when  it  reached  a 
distance  of  less  than  three  spans  from  the  ground,  it  must  be 
considered  as  resting  on  the  ground ;  he  informs  us  (that  such  is 
not  the  case). 

MISHNA:  If  one  throw  a  distance  of  four  ells  on  the  sea, 
he  is  free;  if  there  happen  to  be  shallow  water,  through  which 
a  public  thoroughfare  leads,  where  he  threw  the  four  ells,  he  is 
culpable.  What  must  be  the  maximum  depth  of  such  shallow 
water  ?  Less  than  ten  spans ;  for  one  who  throws  four  ells  in  shal- 
low water,  through  which  only  occasionally  a  public  thorough- 
fare leads,  is  culpable. 

GEMARA:  Said  one  of  the  schoolmen  to  Rabha:  "The 
Mishna  mentioning  a  public  thoroughfare  twice  is  justified  in 
doing  so,  because  we  might  presume  that  a  thoroughfare  used 
only  in  cases  of  necessity  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  public  thor- 
oughfare, and  hence  the  Mishna  informs  us  that  while  in  other 
cases  use  from  necessity  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  customary,  in 
this  case  it  is  different.  But  why  is  shallow  water  mentioned 
twice  ?  "  Answered  Abayi :  Wo  might  presume  that  the  shallow 
water  was  not  four  ells  wide,  in  which  case  it  would  be  used  as  a 
thoroughfare;  but  if  it  was  four  ells,  people  would  circumvene  it, 
and   thus   it   would   not   be  considered   a  public    thoroughfare; 


200  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

therefore  it  is  repeated  to  inform  us  that  there  is  no  difference 
between  shallow  water  less  than  four  ells  wide  or  more. 

MISHNA:  One  who  throws  from  the  sea  into  land,  from 
land  into  the  sea,  from  the  sea  into  a  ship,  from  a  ship  into  the 
sea,  or  from  one  ship  into  another,  is  free.  If  ships  are  bound 
together,  one  may  transfer  an  object  from  one  into  the  other; 
but  if  the  ships  are  not  bound  together,  even  though  they  lie 
alongside  of  one  another  (and  meet),  one  must  not  transfer  a 
thing  from  one  into  the  other. 

GEMARA:  We  have  learned:  If  one  desires  to  draw  water 
from  the  sea  into  the  ship,  he  must  make  a  small  (board)  attach- 
ment to  the  side  of  the  ship,  and  then  he  can  draw  the  water. 
So  said  R.  Huna,  because  he  holds  that  unclaimed  ground  com- 
mences from  the  bottom  of  the  sea  and  ends  with  the  surface. 
The  atmosphere  above  the  sea  is  considered  as  ground  under  no 
jurisdiction,  and  hence  the  making  of  the  attachment  was 
really  not  necessary;  but  it  being  Sabbath,  this  should  be  done 
to  distinguish  the  Sabbath  from  week-days.  R.  Hisda  and 
Rabba  bar  R.  Huna  said:  "The  attachment  made  should  be 
four  ells  wide,"  because  they  hold  that  the  unclaimed  ground 
commences  from  the  surface  of  the  water,  and  the  water  itself  is 
considered  as  ground,  and  if  the  attachment  were  not  made,  it 
would  constitute  carrying  from  unclaimed  ground  into  private 
ground,  and  this  is  not  allowed  to  commence  with. 

R.  Huna  said:  "  On  the  small  boats,  that  are  not  four  spans 
wide  down  their  entire  depth,  a  man  must  not  carry  anything 
only  for  four  ells  (because  it  cannot  be  considered  private  ground), 
unless  at  a  distance  of  three  spans  from  the  ground  the  boat  is 
four  spans  wide.  If  there  be  sticks  or  refuse  at  the  bottom  of 
the  boat,  the  bottom  of  the  boat  commences  from  the  top  of 
such  sticks  or  refuse,  and  if  the  boat  be  ten  spans  high,  accord- 
ing to  that  calculation  one  may  carry  in  it."  R.  Na'hman 
opposed  this:  "  Why  should  a  man  not  be  permitted  to  carry 
in  a  boat  the  bottom  of  which  is  not  strewn  with  sticks  and 
refuse  ? "  Have  we  not  learned  in  a  Boraitha  that  R.  Jose  b.  R. 
Jehudah  said:  "If  one  placed  in  public  ground  a  stick  (ten 
spans  high),  on  top  of  which  was  a  trough,  which  was  four  spans 
wide,  a  person  throwing  anything  on  top  of  the  trough  is  culpa- 
ble, because,  while  the  trough  was  not  ten  spans  high  itself,  the 
height  of  the  stick  upon  which  it  rests  is  considered  as  included 
in  its  own."  Why  should  this  not  also  refer  to  the  case  of  the 
boat,  and  the  place  where  it  is  four  spans  wide  be  considered 


TRACT   SABHATH.  201 

as  if  it  reached  down  to  the  bottom  ?  R.  Joseph  opposed  R. 
Na'hman  as  follows:  "  Did  not  R.  Na'hman  hear  that  R.  Jehu- 
dah,  in  the  name  of  Rabh,  according  to  others,  in  the  name  of 
R.  Hyya,  said,  that  the  sages  did  not  agree  with  Jose  b.  R. 
Jehudah  and  exonerated  the  man?"  Hence  we  see  that  the 
Boraitha,  treating  of  the  boat,  holds  with  the  opinion  of  the 
rabbis. 

"  If  ships  arc  bound  together,"  etc.  Is  this  not  self-evi- 
dent ?  Said  Rabha :  "The  Mishna  wishes  to  inform  us,  that 
one  is  permitted  to  carry  from  one  ship  into  another,  even  if  a 
small  boat  is  between  them,  i.e.,  one  may  carry  from  one  ship 
into  the  boat  and  thence  into  the  other  ship,  even  though  the 
small  boat  is  not  tied  to  either  ship."  Said  R.  Saphra  to  him: 
"  Moses!*  How  canst  thou  say  such  a  thing?  Does  not  the 
Mishna  state  explicitly  that  one  may  carry  from  one  ship  into 
another?  No  boat  between  them  (was  mentioned)."  R. 
Saphra,  however,  explained  the  Mishna  thus :  The  Mishna,  by 
saying  one  may  carry  from  one  ship  into  another,  means  to  say 
that  an  Erubh  may  be  made  between  the  two  ships,  just  as 
between  two  houses,  and  then  things  may  be  carried  from  one 
into  the  other,  as  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  An  Erubh  may 
be  made  between  ships  that  are  tied  together  and  things  may  be 
carried  from  one  into  the  other.  If  the  rope  by  means  of  which 
the  ships  were  lashed  to  each  other  became  torn,  carrying  to  and 
from  one  ship  to  the  other  is  not  allowed;  but  if  the  ships  were 
lashed  together  again,  either  intentionally  or  unintentionally, 
through  compulsion  or  through  an  error,  the  original  permission 
again  holds  good. 

The  same  is  the  case  with  mats  of  which  tents  were  made, 
whereby  the  ground  enclosed  by  the  mats  becomes  private ;  and 
if  many  such  tents  were  made,  carrying  from  one  tent  into 
another  is  permitted,  provided  an  Erubh  is  made.  If  the  mats 
were  rolled  up,  however,  such  carrying  is  not  permitted.  Were 
the  mats  rolled  down  again,  intentionally  or  unintentionally, 
through  compulsion  or  through  error,  the  original  permission 
again  holds  good. 

It  was  reported  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  If  the  ships  were 
tied  together  with  a  mere  thread,  permission  to  carry  from  one 
into  the  other  holds  good. 

MISHNA:  If  one  threw  a  thing,  and   after  the  thing  had 

*  The  word  Moses  was  used  as  a  title  to  a  great  teacher. 


202  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

passed  out  of  his  hand,  he  recollected  that  it  was  Sabbath ;  if 
another  person  caught  the  thing  thrown;  if  a  dog  caught  it  or  if 
the  thing  thrown  was  consumed  by  fire  (before  reaching  its  des- 
tination), the  man  is  free.  If  one  threw  a  thing  for  the  purpose 
of  injuring  a  man  or  a  beast,  and  before  such  injury  was  inflicted 
recollected  (that  it  was  Sabbath),  he  is  free.  (For)  this  is  the 
rule  :  Only  such  are  culpable  and  bound  to  bring  a  sin-offering  as 
commit  an  act  through  error  from  beginning  to  end ;  if  the  act, 
however,  was  committed  through  error  only  at  the  start,  and  at 
the  close  was  committed  consciously,  or  vice  versa,  the  perpe- 
trator is  free  until  the  beginning  as  well  as  the  end  of  the  act  is 
committed  through  error. 

GEMARA:  What  would  be  the  case,  if  the  thing,  after 
passing  out  of  the  thrower's  hand,  had  rested  (outside  of  four 
ells  in  public  ground)  ?  Would  he  be  culpable  ?  Why  !  Did 
he  not  recollect  (that  it  was  Sabbath)  before  the  thing  rested  ? 
And  our  Mishna  (distinctly)  states  that  one  cannot  be  culpable 
unless  an  act  were  committed  through  error  from  beginning  to 
end!  Said  Rabha:  The  Mishna  teaches  us  two  facts:  Firstly, 
if  one  threw  a  thing,  and  after  the  thing  had  passed  out  of  his 
hand  he  recollected  (that  it  was  Sabbath);  or  secondly,  even  if 
he  did  not  recollect  (that  it  was  Sabbath),  but  another  man,  or 
a  dog,  caught  the  thing,  or  it  was  consumed  by  fire  before  it 
rested,  he  is  not  culpable. 

"  This  is  the  rule/'  We  have  learned:  If  one  threw  a  dis- 
tance of  six  ells,  two  ells  through  error,  the  next  two  con- 
sciously, and  the  last  again  through  error,  Rabba  declares  him 
free.  (How  can  that  occur  ?  As  soon  as  the  object  had  passed 
out  of  his  hand  and  had  not  yet  reached  farther  than  two  ells,  he 
became  conscious  that  it  was  Sabbath,  and  before  it  had  passed 
the  next  two  ells  he  forgot  again  that  it  was  Sabbath.)  Rabha, 
however,  declares  him  culpable.  Rabba  declares  him  free,  even 
according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Gamaliel  (in  the  last  Mishna  of 
Chapter  XII.),  who  does  not  consider  the  consciousness  during 
the  time  intervening  between  the  perpetration  of  the  two  acts 
(each  of  which  only  executed  one-half  the  prescribed  deed)  as 
being  of  any  consequence  (but  considers  the  two  unfinished  acts 
as  one  prolonged  act  done  unintentionally  and  making  the  per- 
petrator culpable).  For  what  reason  ?  Because  in  the  case 
treated  of  in  the  cited  Mishna  nothing  was  done  during  the 
period  of  consciousness  (of  the  Sabbath)  intervening  between 
the  two  unfinished  acts  to  neutralize  the  erroneous  character  of 


TRACT    SABBATH.  203 

the  two  unfinished  acts,  and  thus  they  became  one  finished  act 
and  made  the  perpetrator  culpable.  In  this  case,  however,  Rabba 
assumes  that  during  the  time  intervening  between  the  passing 
of  the  first  two  ells  and  the  last  two  ells,  the"  man  carried  the 
thing,  and  did  so  fully  conscious  (of  the  Sabbath),  and  thus  neu- 
tralized the  erroneous  character  surrounding  the  throwing  for  the 
first  two  and  last  two  ells.  Rabha,  however,  declares  him  cul- 
pable, even  according  to  the  rabbis,  who  hold  contrar}'  to  the 
opinion  of  R.  Gamaliel  (in  the  cited  Mishna)  and  consider  the 
consciousness  (of  Sabbath)  during  the  period  intervening  between 
the  two  unfinished  acts  as  a  neutralization  of  the  unintentional 
character  of  the  unfinished  acts,  thus  making  the  perpetrator 
not  culpable.  In  this  case,  however,  the  man  is  culpable. 
(Why  so  ?)  Because  in  the  case  cited  in  the  same  Mishna 
the  entire  act  could  have  been  committed,  but  was  not,  for 
after  the  man  became  conscious  (of  its  being  Sabbath)  he 
stopped;  hence  the  unfinished  act  was  not  counted.  Later  he 
again  forgot  that  it  was  Sabbath,  but  again  recollected,  before 
the  entire  act  was  committed;  so  the  second  unfinished  act  was 
not  counted,  and  the  man  is  free.  In  this  case,  however,  the 
thing  having  been  thrown  could  not  be  stopped  when  the  man 
became  conscious  of  its  being  Sabbath  before  it  reached  its  des- 
tination !  Thus  the  act  was  committed,  and  the  fact  that  the 
thrower  became  conscious  (of  its  being  Sabbath)  in  the  mean  time 
is  of  no  consequence.  (Now,  the  conclusion  is  that  there  is 
really  no  difference  between  the  rabbis  and  R.  Gamaliel  or  be- 
tween Rabba  and  Rabha,  because  all  agree  that  if  the  thing  was 
thrown  the  man  is  culpable,  but  if  carried  by  hand  he  is  not.) 

Rabba  said  :  If  one  threw  a  thing  and  it  rested  in  the  mouth 
of  a  dog  or  in  the  opening  of  an  oven,  he  is  culpable.  Did 
we  not  learn  in  the  Mishna  that  if  a  dog  caught  it,  or  if  it  was 
consumed  by  fire,  he  is  not  culpable?  Yea;  but  the  Mishna 
refers  to  a  case  where  the  intention  was  to  throw  it  elsewhere 
and  accidentally  a  dog  caught  it  or  it  was  consumed  by  fire;  but 
Rabba  means  to  say  that  a  man  is  culpable  if  he  intentionally 
throw  it  into  the  dog's  mouth  or  into  the  oven.  Said  R.  Bibhi 
b.  Abayi :  We  have  also  learned  elsewhere  that  the  intention  to 
have  a  thing  rest  in  a  place  makes  that  place  a  fit  one  for  the 
thing. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

REGULATIONS     CONCERNING      BUILDING,  '  PLOUGHING,    ETC.,    ON      THE 

SABBATH. 

MISHNA:  (Among  the  forty,  less  one,  principal  acts  of 
labor,  building  was  enumerated.)  What  is  the  least  amount  of 
building  which  will  make  a  man  culpable  ?  The  least  possible 
amount.  The  same  applies  to  stone-masonry,  smoothing  with  a 
hammer  (at  the  close  of  the  work) ;  as  for  planing,  he  who  planes 
the  least  bit,  and  for  drilling,  he  who  drills  ever  so  little,  is  cul- 
pable. For  this  is  the  rule :  He  who  performs  any  act  of  labor 
which  is  of  permanent  value  is  culpable.  R.  Simeon  ben  Gama- 
liel said:  He  who  during  his  work  strikes  the  anvil  with  his 
sledge  is  culpable,  because  he  virtually  brings  about  labor. 

GEMARA:  Of  what  use  is  so  small  an  amount  of  building  ? 
Said  R.  Aha  bar  Jacob:  "  So  small  an  amount  of  building  is 
usually  done  by  a  householder  who  discovers  a  hole  in  the  wall 
of  one  of  his  rooms  and  fills  it  up  (with  wood  or  cement).  And 
the  instance  of  such  work  having  been  performed  at  the  (con- 
struction of  the)  Tabernacle  is :  When  one  of  the  boards  con- 
tained a  hole  produced  by  worms,  a  little  molten  lead  was 
poured  into  it  and  it  was  thus  filled." 

Samuel  said:  "  One  who  places  a  stone  in  the  street  for  the 
purpose  of  paving  the  walk  is  culpable."  An  objection  was 
made.  We  have  learned  elsewhere:  If  one  furnish  the  stone 
for  paving  and  another  furnish  the  mortar,  the  latter  is  culpa- 
ble ?  [Says  the  Gemara:]  If  you  base  your  objection  to  Sam- 
uel's decree  upon  this  Boraitha,  why  do  you  not  also  cite  the 
latter  decree  of  the  Boraitha  which  reads:  R.  Jose  says:  "  One 
who  picks  up  a  stone  and  places  it  upon  a  row  of  stones  is  also 
culpable"  ?  Hence  we  see  that  there  are  three  different  kinds 
of  building.  Building  at  the  base,  in  the  centre,  and  on  the 
top.  Building  at  the  base  only  requires  a  solid  foundation  in 
the  earth.  Building  in  the  centre  requires  mortar.  Building  on 
top  needs  only  proper  placing  without  the  use  of  mortar. 

"Stone-masonry."       In   what  category  of    labor  can  stone- 

204 


TRACT    SABBATH.  205 

masonry  be  placed,  that  its  performance  should  make  one  culfia- 
ble?  Rabh  said  it  comes  under  the  catcgor>-  of  building,  and 
Samuel  said  under  the  category  of  smoothing  with  a  hammer. 
The  same  difference  of  opinion  exists  between  Rabh  and  Samuel 
in  the  case  of  one  who  bores  a  hole  in  a  chicken-coop  that  was 
not  previously  perforated.  The  former  holds  this  to  be  build- 
ing, while  the  latter  regards  it  the  same  as  smoothing  with  a 
hammer,  (It  makes  no  difference  to  one  who  performs  such 
labor  unintentionally,  for  in  either  event  he  must  bring  a  sin- 
offering,  regardless  of  what  class  of  labor  he  performed,  if  he 
does  only  one  act ;  but  when  he  performs  two  acts  there  is  a 
difference.  If  they  are  both  of  one  categor}^  he  is  bound  to 
bring  only  one  sin-offering,  but  if  they  are  of  different  categories, 
he  must  bring  txvo ;  but  in  the  case  of  one  who  performed  such 
work  with  intention,  even  if  he  does  only  one  act  it  does  make 
a  difference.  The  witnesses  to  his  deed  when  warning  him — of 
his  wrong-doing — must  inform  him  just  what  class  of  labor  he  is 
engaged  in  executing.  Should  they  tell  him  incorrectly,  he 
cannot  be  held  guilty.  This  applies  to  all  cases  where  the 
Gemara  asks  as  to  the  category  of  labor  performed.)  The  same 
difference  of  opinion  also  exists  in  the  case  of  one  who  affixed 
a  handle  to  a  pickaxe,  Rabh  classing  such  work  as  building,  and 
Samuel  as  smoothing  with  a  hammer. 

A  question  was  propounded  by  R.  Nathan  bar  Oshiya  to  R. 
Johanan :  "  Under  what  category'  of  labor  is  stone-masonry  to 
be  placed  ?  "  R.  Johanan  answered  him  by  making  the  sign  of 
hammering  with  his  hand. 

''For  this  is  the  rule.''  What  additional  significance  does 
the  statement  "  for  this  is  the  rule  "  contain  ?  It  applies  to  the 
hollowing  out  of  a  block  of  wood  capable  of  holding  a  Kabh 
(about  four  lugs),  a  cavity  a  good  deal  smaller. 

"  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  said,"  etc.  What  labor  is  per- 
formed by  striking  an  anvil  with  a  sledge  ?  The  Tosephta  in 
this  chapter  explains  it  as  follows:  "  Said  R.  Simeon  ben  Gama- 
liel :  He  who  during  his  work  strikes  the  anvil  with  the  sledge 
is  culpable ;  because  at  the  construction  of  the  Tabernacle  those 
that  covered  the  boards  with  metal-plate  would  strike  the 
plates  with  their  hammers." 

MISHNA:  One  who  ploughs,  grubs,  weeds,  or  prunes  ever 
so  little  is  culpable.  One  who  gathers  wood  for  the  purpose  of 
using  the  space  occupied  by  the  wood  is  culpable  if  he  gathers 
ever  so  little;  but  if  he  gathers  it  for  the  purpose  of  lighting  a 

VOL.    II.  —  2 


2o6  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

fire  with  it,  he  is  culpable  only  if  he  gathered  as  much  as  is 
required  to  cook  (an  easily  boiled  egg).  If  one  gathered  grass 
for  the  sake  of  the  space  occupied  by  it,  he  is  culpable  for  gath- 
ering even  ever  so  little ;  if  for  the  purpose  of  feeding  cattle,  he 
does  not  become  liable  unless  he  gathered  as  much  as  a  goat's 
mouthful. 

GEMARA:  Of  what  use  is  a  place  where  a  man  ploughed 
ever  so  little  ?  It  may  be  used  to  plant  one  seed  of  a  cucumber 
in.  This  was  also  done  at  the  Tabernacle,  where  one  root  was 
all  that  was  necessary  (for  dyeing)  and  was  pulled  out  of  the 
ground,  thereby  making  a  hole.  (This  is  not  contradictory  to 
what  we  have  learned  previously,  that  the  minimum  prescribed 
quantity  for  cucumber  seeds  was  two,  because  a  man  will  not 
take  one  cucumber  seed  out  for  sowing;  but  when  sowing  a 
separate  hole  is  made  for  each  seed  and  thus  the  prescribed  quan- 
tity in  this  case  is  limited  to  one.) 

One  who  ploughs^  grubs,  weeds,  or  prunes."  The  rabbis 
taught :  One  who  tears  out  herbs  (which  when  damp  are  good 
for  human  food)  for  the  purpose  of  eating  them  is  culpable  if 
the  quantity  equals  or  exceeds  the  size  of  a  dried  fig.  For 
cattle  the  prescribed  quantity  is  that  of  a  goat's  mouthful.  If 
for  the  purpose  of  using  for  fuel,  the  prescribed  quantity  is  as 
much  as  is  used  to  cook  an  easily  boiled  egg  with ;  if  for  the 
purpose  of  cleaning  (weeding)  his  place,  he  is  culpable  even  for 
ever  so  little.  Is  all  this  kind  of  work  not  done  for  the  sake  of 
cleaning  the  place  ?*  Said  Rabba  and  R.  Joseph:  The  Mishna 
treats  of  a  case  where  even  if  the  man  was  not  standing  in  a 
garden  belonging  to  an  individual,  but  even  if  he  did  it  in  a 
public  field  (if  his  intention  is  to  clean  the  place  he  is  culpable). 
Abayi  said:  (The  same  is  the  case)  even  if  he  did  it  in  a  private 
field  and  had  no  intention  to  clean  the  place,  as  it  did  not  belong 
to  him  but  to  some  one  else. 

MISHNA:  One  who  writes  two  letters,  with  the  right  or 
with  the  left  hand,  be  they  of  one  denomination  or  of  different 
denominations,  or  be  they  written  with  different  inks  or  be  they 
letters  of  different  languages  (alphabets),  is  culpable.  R.  Jose 
said :  The  only  reason  that  one  is  declared  culpable  for  writing 
two  letters,  is  because  they  can  serve  as  marks ;  for  thus  the 
boards  used  at  the  Tabernacle  were  marked  in  order  to  be  able 
to  tell  which  fit  together.     Rabbi  (Jehuda  Hanassi)  said :  We 

*  This  means  that  taking  the  things  away  cleans  the  place  even  unintentionally. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  207 

also  often  find  a  short  name  which  forms  part  of  a  long  name,  as 
Sam  for  Simeon  and  Samuel,  Noah  for  Nahor,  Dan  for  Daniel, 
Gad  for  Gadiel. 

GEMARA:  It  would  be  right  if  the  Mishna  were  to  say  that 
if  one  write  with  his  right  hand  he  is  culpable,  because  writing 
with  the  right  hand  is  the  general  way;  but  writing  with  the  left 
is  entirely  out  of  the  ordinary.  Why  should  he  be  culpable  ? 
Said  R.  Jeremiah:  "The  Mishna  also  refers  to  a  left-handed 
man."  A  left-handed  man  ?  His  left  is  his  right  and  his  right 
his  left  hand.  Let  him  then  not  be  culpable  if  he  use  his  right 
hand  !  Said  Abayi :  In  the  case  of  the  Mishna  a  man  is  referred 
to  who  has  equal  strength  in  both  hands;  but  R.  Jacob,  son  of 
the  daughter  of  Jacob,  said:  The  Mishna  stands  according  to 
the  decree  of  R.  Jose  that  the  reason  of  a  man's  culpability  is 
because  of  the  letters  standing  for  marks,  and  the  making  of 
marks  with  either  the  right  or  the  left  hand  is  prohibited.  How 
can  the  first  part  of  the  Mishna  be  according  to  the  opinion  of 
R.  Jose — it  teaches  further,  "  R.  Jose  said"?  If  the  latter 
part  is  explicitly  attributed  to  R.  Jose,  the  first  part  cannot  be 
in  accord  with  him.  Nay;  the  entire  Mishna  is  in  accord  with 
R.  Jose  (say  then  because  R.  Jose  said). 

"Rabbi  said:  We  also  oftcji  find  a  short  name,''  etc.  What 
does  Rabbi  mean  by  this  teaching  ?  Shall  we  assume  that  one 
is  culpable  only  if  he  wrote  two  letters  representing  two  different 
names,  but  if  the  two  were  merely  an  abbreviation  of  one  name 
he  is  not  culpable  ?  Did  we  not  learn  in  a  Boraitha:  "  It  is  writ- 
ten [Lev.  iv.  2]:  And  do  (of)  any  (one)  of  them."  One  might 
assume  from  this  verse  that  the  man  is  not  culpable  unless  he 
wrote  the  entire  name,  or  wove  the  entire  cloth,  or  he  finished 
the  whole  length  of  the  seam,  therefore  it  is  written  "  of  any 
(one)  of  them."  Now,  if  we  take  "  of  any  (one)  of  them" 
literally,  the  writing  of  even  one  letter  or  the  weaving  of  even 
one  thread  should  make  one  culpable!  Therefore  it  is  written: 
"  Of  any  {one)  of  them."  How  should  this  be  understood  ? 
One  is  not  culpable  until  he  writes  a  short  name  which  forms 
part  of  a  long  name,  like  Sam  for  Simeon  or  Samuel,  Noah  for 
Nahor,  etc.,  etc.  Rabbi  (Jchudah)  said:  The  two  letters  need 
not  be  part  of  a  long  name,  but  even  if  the  two  form  a  name 
(of  a  thing)  in  themselves  like:  Shesh,  teth,  red,  gag,  choch. 
(shesh — lion,  teth — to  give,  red — go  below,  gag — roof,  choch — 
nose  band.)  Said  R.  Jose:  Is  then  the  man  culpable  because  of 
writing  ?      It  is  only  because  of  making  a  mark,  for  thus  were 


2o8  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

the  boards  of  the  Tabernacle  marked  in  order  that  one  might 
tell  which  fit  together.  Therefore  if  one  made  but  one  scratch 
on  two  boards  or  two  scratches  on  one  board,  he  is  culpable.  R. 
Simeon  quotes  the  same  verse:  "And  do  (of)  any  (one)  of 
them."  One  might  assume  that  the  man  is  not  culpable  unless 
he  wrote  the  entire  name,  etc.  How  should  this  be  understood  ? 
One  is  not  culpable  until  he  has  performed  labor  which  is  per- 
manently fixed.  Now  in  the  Boraitha  we  see  that  R.  Jehudah 
said  the  two  letters  need  not  be  part  of  a  name,  but  even  if  the 
two  form  a  name.  (Docs  not  R.  Jehudah  contradict  himself  ?) 
This  presents  no  difificulty.  In  the  above  Mishna  he  gives  his 
own  opinion,  while  in  the  Boraitha  he  cites  his  master's  opinion, 
because  we  have  learned  in  another  Boraitha :  R.  Jehudah  said 
in  the  name  of  R.  Gamaliel:  "  Even  if  the  two  letters  are  not 
part  of  a  long  name,  but  form  a  name  in  themselves,  he  is  cul- 
pable.    For  instance:  shesh,  teth,  etc." 

Did  not  R.  Simeon  say  the  very  same  thing  as  the  first 
Tana?  Perhaps  one  might  say  that  R.  Simeon  refers  to  one  who 
wrote  two  letters  that  have  no  meaning  and  are  part  of  a  long 
word.  For  instance,  Aa  from  Aazreko  (I  assisted  you).  In 
such  a  case  R.  Simeon  would  be  the  stricter  and  the  first  Tana 
the  more  lenient.  Is  this  not  contrary  to  R.  Simeon's  wont,  as 
we  have  learned  in  a  Tosephta  further  on:  "If  one  bore  a  hole 
with  a  drill,  be  the  hole  ever  so  small,  he  is  culpable,"  etc.?  R. 
Simeon  however  declares  him  free  until  the  hole  made  was  as 
large  as  it  was  originally  intended  to  be.  Answer  and  interpret 
R.  Simeon's  words  thus:  One  might  say  that  one  is  not  culpable 
until  he  writes  the  whole  verse;  therefore  it  is  written  "  of  any 
one,''  signifying  that  one  word  is  sufificient. 

''  Rabbi  said :  We  also  often  find,''  etc.  How  can  the  name 
of  Sam  be  equal  to  Simeon  ?  The  (letter)  Mem  in  Sam  is  an 
end  (closed)  letter,  while  the  Mem  in  Simeon  is  an  open  (middle) 
Mem.*  Said  R.  Hisda:  From  this  we  may  infer  that  if  one 
write  by  mistake  an  open  Mem  instead  of  a  closed  Mem  in  the 
scroll  of  laws,  the  scroll  may  be  used. 

The  rabbis  said  to  R.  Jchoshua  ben  Levi :  There  were  some 
young  men  at  the  schoolhouse  to-day,  and  they  related  such 
wonderful  things  as  were  never  taught  before  even  in  the  time 
of   Joshua  the  son  of    Nun.       These  are  they:    Aleph,    Beth 


•  The  five  Hebrew  letters  Khaf,  Mem,  Nun,  Peh,  and  Tzadi  are  written  differ- 
ently at  the  end  and  in  the  centre  of  words. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  209 

means  OUph  Bino  (go  and  teach  knowledge).  GImmel,  Daled 
moans  Gmol  (be  bountiful)  Dalim  (to  the  poor).  Why  is  the 
foot  of  the  Gimmcl  pointed  toward  the  Daled  ?  Because  so 
should  be  the  feet  of  those  who  are  bountiful — ever  ready  to 
seek  beneficiaries.  Why  is  the  foot  of  the  Daled  pointed  back 
toward  the  Gimmcl  ?  In  order  that  the  poor  man  may  know 
that  he  must  not  conceal  himself  from  his  benefactor.  Why 
does  the  Daled  turn  its  face  from  the  Gimmel  ?  In  order  to 
teach  us  that  the  benefactor  should  give  to  the  poor  without 
ostentation  and  that  the  poor  man  be  not  abashed.  Hey, 
Vav,  Zayin,  Cheth,  Teth,  lod,  Khaf,  Lamad  means:  Hey  Vav, 
which  is  the  name  of  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He;  (Zayin) 
Zon — He  will  feed  thee;  (Cheth)  Cheyn — will  be  gracious  unto 
thee;  (Teth)  Tov — will  be  good  to  thee;  (lod)  lerushah — He 
will  make  thee  inherit  in  the  world  to  come ;  (Khaf)  Khesser — 
He  will  give  thee  a  crown ;  (Lamad)  Leaulim  haboh — in  the 
world  to  come. 

Mem  open  (middle)  and  Mem  closed  (end)  means  Meimar 
(sayings)  Pathuach  (open)  [implying  that  there  are  such  sayings 
of  God  as  are  open  to  every  one] ;  but  Meimar  (sayings)  Sathum 
(closed)  [implying  that  there  are  sayings  of  God  which  are  hidden 
to  most  men].  Noon  curved  (middle)  and  Noon  straight  (end) 
means  Neamon  (an  upright  man);  Khaph  (curved)  [should  be 
(curved)  bowed  down,  modest  in  this  life,  and  in  the  life  here- 
after he  will  become  a  Neamon]  (an  upright  man)  Pashut 
(straight).  Samach  means  Smohch  (assist).  Ayin  means  aniim 
(the  poor).  Pch  round  (middle)  and  Peh  straight  (end)  means 
Peh  (a  mouth)  Pasuach  (shall  be  open  [to  teach]) ;  and  Peh 
(mouth)  Sasum  (shall  be  closed  [to  slander]).  Tzadi  round 
(middle)  and  Tzadi  straight  (end)  means  Tzadik  (a  righteous 
man)  should  be  modest  and  fearless  (straight).  Quph  means 
Qodosh  (holy),  implying  who  does  all,  that  has  been  mentioned, 
is  holy.  Resh  means  Roshoh  (wicked),  implying,  who  does  the 
contrar}''  is  wicked.  Why  does  the  crown  of  the  Quph  look 
down  upon  the  Resh  ?  Just  as  the  Qodosh  (Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He)  looks  down  upon  the  Roshoh  (the  wicked),  saying:  Turn 
from  thy  ways  and  I  shall  also  give  thee  a  crown.  Why  does  the 
foot  of  the  Quph  hang  unsupported  ?  In  order  to  admit  of  the 
wicked  entering  into  the  Qudoshim  (holiness)  if  he  turn  from  his 
ways.  Shin  means  Sheqer  (a  lie)  and  Thaph  means  Emeth 
(truth).  Why  are  the  letters  of  Sheqer  so  near  to  one  another 
(the  order  of  sequence  in  the  alphabet  is  Resh,  Quph,  Shin)  and 


2IO  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Emeth  so  far  from  one  another  (being  the  first,  middle,  and  last 
letters  of  the  alphabet)  ?  Because  lies  are  very  frequent,  while 
truth  is  very  scarce.  Why  have  the  letters  in  Sheqer  but  one 
foot  while  those  in  Emeth  have  so  many  ?  Because  lies  will 
finally  totter,  while  truth  will  .stand  supreme. 

MISHNA:  One  who  through  forgetfulness  at  one  time  wrote 
two  letters  is  culpable.  He  may  have  written  with  ink,  paint, 
dye,  gum,  or  vitriol,  or  with  anything  making  a  permanent 
mark.  Further,  one  who  wrote  on  two  walls  forming  a  corner, 
or  on  two  covers  of  an  arithmetical  book,  so  that  the  two  letters 
can  be  read  together,  is  culpable.  One  who  writes  on  his  own 
body  is  culpable.  One  who  tattooes  letters  in  his  flesh  R. 
Eliezer  holds  him  culpable  for  a  sin-offering,  and  R.  Jchoshua 
holds  him  to  be  free.  If  one  write  with  dark  liquids,  with  fruit- 
juice,  or  in  road-dust,  in  fine  sand,  or  in  anything  that  does  not 
retain  the  writing,  he  is  free.  If  one  write  with  the  back  of 
his  hand,  with  his  feet,  with  his  mouth,  with  his  elbow;  or  if 
one  write  one  letter  to  another  letter  (that  had  already  been 
written),  or  writes  over  letters  that  had  been  written  before;  or 
when  one's  intention  was  to  write  a  Cheth  and  wrote  two  Zayins ; 
or  if  one  write  one  letter  on  the  ground  and  another  on  the 
wall,  or  on  two  separate  walls,  or  on  two  separate  pages  of  a 
book,  when  the  two  letters  cannot  be  read  together,  he  is  free. 
If  one  wrote  one  abbreviated  letter,  R.  Jehudah  ben  Bethyra 
holds  him  culpable  and  the  sages  hold  him  free. 

GEMARA:  "  Or  with  anything  making  a  permanent  mark,*' 
etc.  What  other  additional  things  docs  the  Mishna  mean  to 
express  by  this  ?  R.  Hananyah  taught :  It  means  if  one  wrote 
with  berry-juice  or  with  gall-nuts,  he  is  also  culpable.  R.  Hyya 
taught:  "If  one  wrote  with  graphite,  soot,  or  black  ink,  he  is 
culpable." 

"  One  who  tattooes  two  letters  on  his  flesh,''  etc.  We  have 
learned  in  a  Boraitha:  Said  R.  Eliezer  to  the  sages:  "  Did  not 
the  son  of  Sattadai*  bring  witchcraft  out  of  Egypt,  through 
tattooing  on  his  flesh  ? "  Answered  the  sages:  "  He  was  a  fool 
and  wc  do  not  cite  single  instances  of  fools." 

"  If  one  write  one  letter  to  another  letter,''  etc.  According 
to  which  Tana's  opinion  is  this?  Said  Rabba  bar  R.  Huna: 
"  This  is  not  according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Eliezer,  for  R. 
Eliezer   said    that    if  one   add    another    thread    to    one  already 


*  As  to  who  Ben  Sattadai  was,  see  the  works  of  Prof.  Derenbourg. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  an 

woven,  he  is  culpable."  We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  "  If 
one  wrote  one  letter  at  the  end  of  any  scriptural  book,  thereby 
finishing  that  particular  book,  or  if  one  added  another  thread  to 
one  already  woven,  he  is  culpable."  According  to  which  Tana's 
opinion  is  this?  Said  Rabba  bar  R.  Huna:  "  This  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  opinion  of  R.  Eliezer,  who  said  that  if  one  add 
another  thread  to  one  already  woven  he  is  culpable."  R.  Ashi 
said :  We  may  assume  that  the  opinion  of  the  sages  docs  not 
conflict  with  this  opinion,  because  the  case  of  finishing  a  book 
differs  from  that  of  adding  another  thread ;  hence,  according  to 
their  opinion,  one  is  also  culpable  (for  finishing  a  book  by  add- 
ing one  letter). 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  "  If  one  corrected  one  letter 
in  the  Scroll  of  laws,  he  is  culpable."  How  can  this  be  ?  One 
is  not  held  culpable  for  writing  one  letter;  how  can  the  Boraitha 
hold  one  culpable  for  merely  correcting  one  letter  ?  Said  R. 
Shesheth :  "  Here  a  special  case  is  treated  of;  i.e.,  if  one  take 
off  the  top  bar  of  the  Cheth  and  make  two  Zayins  out  of 
it."  Rabha  said:  The  same  is  the  case  if,  for  instance,  one 
remove  the  square  portion  of  a  Daled  and  form  a  Resh  there- 
from. 

"  If  one  wrote  07ie  abbreviated  letter,"  etc.  R.  Johanan 
said  in  the  name  of  R.  Jose  ben  Zimra:  "  Whence  do  we  know 
that  tliere  arc  abbreviated  letters  in  the  Scriptures  ?  As  it  is 
written  [in  Gen.  xvii.  5] :  Khi  Ab  Hamaun  Goyim  Nsathicha 
(For  the  father  of  a  multitude  of  nations  have  I  made  thee).  In 
the  word  Ab  the  Aleph  is  the  abbreviation  of  Ab — father,  and 
the  Beth  stands  for  bachur — selected;  Hamaun  stands  for  haviv 
— lovely,  Melech — king,  vathig — modest,  neamon — upright.  All 
this  I  have  made  thee  among  the  nations."  R.  Johanan 
declares  of  his  own  accord  :  "  The  ten  commandments  commence 
with  Anauchi  when  it  could  be  Ani  (meaning  I  am).  The 
Anauchi  is  an  abbreviation  for  Ano  (I),  Naphshi  (my  soul), 
Kthovith  (I  have  written),  Yehovith  (and  have  given)." 

MISHNA:  If  one,  through  forgctfulness  at  two  different 
times,  write  two  letters,  say  one  in  the  morning  and  the  other 
toward  evening,  R.  Gamaliel  holds  him  to  be  culpable  and  the 
sages  declare  him  free. 

GEMARA:  On  what  point  do  R.  Gamaliel  and  the  sages 
differ  ?  R.  Gamaliel  does  not  consider  the  consciousness  (of  its 
being  Sabbath)  during  the  time  intervening  between  the  perpe- 
tration of  the  two  acts  (each  of  which  executed  only  half  the 


212  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

prescribed  deed)  as  being  of  any  consequence  (but  considers  the 
two  unfinished  acts  as  one  prolonged  act  done  unintentionally 
and  making  the  perpetrator  culpable).  The  sages,  however  con- 
sider the  consciousness  (of  Sabbath)  during  the  period  interven- 
ing between  the  two  unfinished  acts  as  a  neutralization  of  tbe 
unintentional  character  of  the  unfinished  acts  and  thus  make  the 
perpetrator  not  culpable. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

REGULATIONS    CONCERNING    WEAVING,    TEARING,    HUNTING,    ETC.,    ON 

THE    SABBATH. 

MISHNA:  R.  EHezersaid:  One  who  weaves  (on  the  Sab- 
bath) is  culpable,  as  soon  as  he  has  woven  three  threads  at  the 
beginning  of  the  web,  and  with  a  web  already  begun  the  addi- 
tion of  one  thread  suffices  to  make  him  culpable.  The  sages 
said :  Both  at  the  commencement  of  a  new  web,  as  well  as  at 
the  continuation  of  one  already  begun,  the  prescribed  quantity 
(making  one  culpable)  is  two  threads.  One  who  attaches  two 
threads  to  the  web,  either  to  the  warp  or  to  the  shoot,  to  the 
fine  or  to  the  coarse  sieve,  or  to  the  basket,  is  culpable.  Also 
one  who  sews  two  stitches,  or  tears  asunder,  in  order  to  sew 
(together  with)  two  stitches. 

GEMARA:  When  R.  Itz'hak  came  to  Babylon,  he  taught 
that  R.  Eliezer  said  "  two  threads  and  not  three,"  as  stated  in 
the  Mishna.  But  we  learned  three!  This  is  no  contradiction. 
R.  Itz'hak  refers  to  thick  threads  and  the  Mishna  to  thin. 

"  One  who  attaches  two  threads,*'  etc.  Said  Abayi :  This 
means,  one  who  attached  two  threads  to  the  web  and  one  in  the 
web. 

"  One  who  seivs  t%vo  stitches,''  etc.  Was  this  not  taught  in 
the  Mishna  treating  of  the  principal  acts  of  labor  ?  Because  in 
the  succeeding  Mishna  the  rule  is  taught  concerning  one,  who 
tears  while  in  a  rage,  or  through  grief  at  the  death  of  a  near  rela- 
tive, sewing  and  tearing  is  repeated  in  this  Mishna. 

"(9r  tears  asunder  in  order  to  sew  together  ivith  tivo  stitches." 
How  is  this  to  be  imagined  ?  (If  by  tearing  the  thing  one  means 
to  spoil  it,  he  may  tear  even  as  much  as  will  require  any  number 
of  stitches  and  not  be  culpable,  but  if  he  tears  in  order  to  sew 
together  with  two  stitches  and  thus  improve  the  thing,  how 
can  that  be  done  ?)  This  can  be  done  in  the  case  of  a  piece  of 
cloth  protruding  from  a  garment,  which  one  would  tear  off,  and 
then  sew  up  the  remaining  rent. 

MISHNA:  One  who  tears  a  thing  while  enraged,  or  through 

213 


214  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

grief  on  account  of  his  dead,  and,  in  general,  all  who  spoil  a 
thing  are  not  culpable.  If,  however,  one  destroy  a  thing  with 
the  intention  to  mend  it,  the  prescribed  quantity  (making  him 
culpable)  is  determined  according  to  the  prescribed  quantity  of 
the  act  by  which  it  is  mended.  The  prescribed  quantity  of  wool 
when  being  washed,  carded,  dyed  or  spun  is  a  thread  the  length 
of  a  double  sit ;  *  in  the  weaving  the  prescribed  quantity  for  wool 
is  the  breadth  of  one  sit. 

GEM ARA :  There  is  a  contradiction :  We  have  learned  in 
a  Boraitha :  One  who  tears  a  thing  while  in  a  rage,  or  through 
grief,  or  through  mourning  for  the  dead,  is  culpable,  and 
although  he  desecrates  the  Sabbath,  the  duty  of  tearing  (or- 
dained in  cases  of  mourners  for  the  dead)  is  fulfilled.  This 
presents  no  difificulty.  The  Boraitha  treats  of  the  case  of  a 
man  who  tore  his  garment  on  account  of  the  death  of  one  on 
whose  account  it  was  his  duty  to  tear  his  garment,  while  the 
Mishna  treats  of  the  case  of  a  man  who  did  not  do  so  for  duty's 
sake,  but  on  account  of  a  death  of  a  stranger,  and  this  not  being 
his  duty,  he  merely  spoiled  his  garment.  How  can  you  say, 
that  the  Mishna  treats  of  a  man  who  tore  his  garment  on  account 
of  the  death  of  a  stranger;  it  says  distinctly  his  dead  ?  Yea,  it 
says  his  dead,  but  he  has  such  relatives,  on  whose  account  he 
need  not  tear  his  garment;  (though  it  may  be  his  duty  to  bury 
them,  he  being  the  nearest  living  relative;  and  tearing  one's  gar- 
ment becomes  a  duty  only  in  the  event  of  the  death  of  a  father, 
mother,  son,  daughter,  brother,  or  sister).  Now,  there  is  no 
contradiction  then  as  far  as  mourning  for  the  dead  is  concerned, 
but  there  surely  is  as  regards  one  who  is  enraged  ?  In  the  Bo- 
raitha he  is  held  culpable  and  in  the  Mishna  he  is  not  ?  Here 
also  there  is  no  difificulty:  The  Mishna's  statement  is  in  accord 
with  R,  Simeon's  decree,  who  holds,  that  one  is  not  culpable  of 
performing  a  deed  not  for  its  own  sake,  while  the  Boraitha  is  in 
accord  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Jehudah,  who  holds  one  culpable 
of  performing  work  even  7iot  for  its  own  sake.  But  you  have 
heard  that  R.  Jehudah's  opinion  only  applied  to  an  act  by  which 
a  thing  was  mended  ?  Did  you  also  hear  that  he  decreed  thus 
in  the  case  of  where  a  thing  was  destroyed  ?  Said  R.  Abhin : 
"  This  is  also  a  case  of  mending,  because  it  relieves  the  man's 


*  The  length  of  a  sit  is  the  distance  between  the  first  and  middle  finger  of  the 
hand  when  stretched  taut.  A  double  sit  is  the  distance  between  the  thumb  and  fore- 
finger when  stretched  farthest  apart. 


TRACT    SABHATH.  us 

mind ;  and  while  he  may  spoil  the  garment  at  the  same  time  he 
abates  his  fury."  Is  such  action  permitted  ?  Have  wc  not 
learned  that  R.  Simeon  ben  Elazar  said  in  the  name  of  'Hilpha 
bar  Agra,  quoting  R.  Johanan  ben  Nuri:  "  He  who  tears  his  gar- 
ments in  his  fury,  or  he  who  breaks  his  vessels,  or  he  who  throws 
away  his  money  while  in  a  rage,  shall  be  regarded  in  your  eyes 
as  a  worshipper  of  idols,  because  such  is  the  custom  of  the  mis- 
leader:  To-day  he  says  to  one,  '  Do  so,'  to-morrow  '  Do  some- 
thing else,'  until  he  tells  one  to  go  and  worship  idols  and  the 
man  does  so."  R.  Abhin  added  to  this:  "  Where  can  a  Scrip- 
tural passage  be  found  prohibiting  this?  [Psalms  Ixxxi.  lo]: 
'  There  shall  not  be  among  thee  a  foreign  god  ;  nor  shalt  thou 
bow  thyself  down  to  any  strange  god.'  This  means  that  no 
foreign  god  (misleadcr)  shall  be  in  thy  heart,  because  it  says 
Becho  (in  thee).  The  latter  part  of  the  verse  infers,  that  if  he 
allows  the  misleader  to  dwell  in  his  heart  it  will  bring  him  to 
bowing  down  to  idols."  Such  action  is  permitted  only  when  a 
man  is  not  in  an  actual  fury,  but  wishes  to  appear  as  if  enraged 
in  order  to  command  obedience  (from  his  family),  as  R.  A'ha  bar 
Jacob  used  to  do;  viz.  :  "  When  he  wanted  to  show  displeasure 
at  the  deeds  of  his  family,  he  would  take  up  a  broken  vessel  and 
shatter  it,  making  his  family  believe  that  he  was  furious  and 
was  breaking  whole  vessels." 

Said  R.  Simeon  ben  Pazi  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehoshua  ben 
Levi,  quoting  Bar  Qapara:*  The  tears  shed  by  a  man  on 
account  of  the  death  of  an  upright  man  are  counted  by  the 
Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  and  stored  in  His  treasury,  as  it  is 
written  [Psalms  Ivi.  9]:  "  My  wanderings  hast  Thou  well  num- 
bered :  put  Thou  my  tears  into  Thy  bottle,  behold  they  are  num- 
bered by  Thee."  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said :  "  One 
who  is  slow  to  mourn  the  death  of  a  scholar  deserves  being 
buried  alive,  as  it  is  written  [Joshua  xxiv.  30]:  'And  they  bur- 
ied him  on  the  border  of  his  inheritance  at  Thimnah-serach, 
which  is  on  the  mountain  of  Ephraim,  on  the  north  side  of 
Mount  Ga'ash.'  Ga'ash  signifies  storm,  and  from  this  it  is 
inferred,  that  because  the  people  did  not  mourn  the  death  of 
Joshua  the  mount  stormed  and  tried  to  bury  them  alive." 

Said  R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan:  "  One 


*  Because  mourning  for  one's  dead  is  treated  of  in  the  last  paragraph,  llie  follow- 
ing discussions  relating  to  mourning  for  upri;.'Iit  men  in  general  are  held  and  the 
opinions  of  the  different  teachers  cited. 


2i6  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

who  is  slow  to  mourn  the  death  of  a  scholar  will  not  have  long 
life.  This  is  in  retaliation ;  (because  he  did  not  mourn  the  death 
of  the  scholar,  his  own  death  will  be  hastened),  as  it  is  written 
[Isaiah  xxvi.  8] :  'In  measure,  by  driving  him  forth,  thou  striv- 
est  with  him.'  "  R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  objected  and  said  to  R. 
Johanan :  How  canst  thou  say,  that  one  who  is  slow  to  mourn 
the  death  of  a  scholar  will  not  have  long  life  ?  Is  it  not  written 
[Judges  ii.  7] :  "  And  the  people  served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of 
Joshua,  and  all  the  days  of  the* elders,  that  lived  many  days 
after  Joshua,  who  had  seen  all  the  great  deeds  of  the  Lord, 
which  he  had  done  for  Israel  "?  R.  Johanan  answered:  "  Thou 
Babylonite !  Does  the  verse  say,  that  lived  many  years  ?  It 
only  says  many  days!  "  Now,  according  to  R.  Johanan's  argu- 
ment, does  the  verse  [Deut.  xi.  21]:  "  In  order  that  your  days 
maybe  multiplied,  and  the  days  of  your  children,"  etc.,  also 
mean  days  and  not  years  ?  In  this  verse  it  is  different.  Where 
a  blessing  is  conferred  days  and  yea.vs  are  meant. 

R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  said  again  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan :  "  If 
one  brother  die,  let  the  remaining  brothers  take  care  that  t/iey 
do  not  die.  Or  if  a  member  of  a  society  die,  let  the  other  mem- 
bers take  care  that  t/iej/  die  not."  This  means:  if  the  best  one 
among  them  die;  another  says,  on  the  contrary,  if  the  least  one 
among  them  die. 

T/ie  prescribed  quantity  of  wool,''  etc.  R.  Joseph  showed 
the  extent  of  a  double  sit  as  being  twice  the  distance  between 
the  fore  and  the  middle  finger  when  spread  out,  and  R.  Hyya 
bar  Ama  showed  its  extent  as  being  the  distance  between  the 
thumb  and  the  forefinger  when  spread  out. 

MISHNA:  R.  Jehudah  said:  "  One  who  chases  a  bird  into 
a  bird-tower  or  a  deer  into  a  house  is  culpable."  The  sages 
said:  "  One  who  chases  a  bird  into  a  bird-tower,  a  deer  into  a 
house,  yard,  or  into  a  menagerie,  is  culpable."  Said  R.  Simeon 
ben  Gamaliel:  "  Not  all  menageries  are  equal.  Following  is  the 
rule:  Where  another  chase  would  be  necessary  (to  catch  the 
deer)  one  is  not  culpable ;  where  no  further  chase  is  necessary, 
one  is  culpable." 

GEMARA:  The  rabbis  taught:  One  who  caught  a  blind  or 
a  sleeping  deer  is  culpable,  but  if  the  deer  is  lame,  sick  or  old  he 
is  not  culpable.  Said  Abayi  to  R.  Joseph:  "What  difference 
is  there  between  the  two  ?  "  Answered  R.  Joseph  :  "  A  blind  or 
a  sleeping  deer,  as  soon  as  touched,  would  attempt  to  escape, 
whereas  a  lame  or  a  sick  animal  could  not  do  this."      Have  we 


TRACT    SABBATH.  217 

not  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  that  one  who  caught  a  sick  deer 
is  culpable  ?  This  presents  no  difficulty.  The  rabbis  refer 
to  a  deer  sick  with  fever  (when  it  was  impossible  for  it  to 
move),  while  the  Boraitha  refers  to  sickness  arising  from  over- 
exertion. 

MISHNA:  If  a  deer  run  into  a  house  and  one  lock  (the 
doors)  behind  the  deer,  he  (the  man)  is  culpable.  If  two  men 
lock  (the  doors)  both  are  free.  If  one  of  them  could  not  lock 
(them)  himself  and  both  did  so,  they  are  both  culpable.  R. 
Simeon  declares  them  free.  If  one  sit  down  at  the  entrance  of 
the  house  without  filling  it  up  and  another  sit  down  beside  him, 
thus  filling  up  the  gap,  the  latter  is  guilty.  If  the  former  sat 
down  at  the  entrance  and  filled  it  up,  and  another  came  up  and 
sat  beside  him,  the  former,  even  if  he  got  up  and  walked  away, 
is  culpable,  and  the  latter  free ;  for  this  is  the  same  as  if  one 
locked  his  house  to  preserve  its  contents  and  a  deer  were  on  the 
inside. 

GEMARA:  R.  Jeremiah  bar  Aba  in  the  name  of  Samuel 
said  :  One  who  catches  a  lion  on  the  Sabbath  is  not  culpable  until 
he  brings  him  into  his  cage. 

R.  Aba  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Hyya  b.  Ashi,  quoting  Rabh : 
"  If  a  bird  flew  under  a  man's  coat-skirt,  the  man  may  keep  it 
there  until  dark."  R.  Na'hman  b.  Itz'hak  objected:  From  the 
above  Mishna,  "  If  a  man  sat  down  at  the  entrance  and  filled  it 
up,  and  another  came  up  and  sat  beside  him,  the  former,  even  if 
he  got  up  and  walked  away,  is  culpable  and  the  latter  is  free," 
would  we  not  assume,  that  the  man  is  free  {i.e.,  he  need  bring 
no  sin-offering)  but  he  should  not  have  done  it  in  the  first 
place  ?  Nay;  it  means  he  is  free  and  may  do  so  to  commence 
with.  This  seems  to  be  borne  out  by  the  latter  part  of  the 
Mishna,  viz. :  "  For  this  is  the  same  as  if  one  locked  his  house 
to  preserve  its  contents  and  a  deer  were  on  the  inside."  It  is 
certainly  allowed  to  close  the  house  on  a  Sabbath  and  hence, 
being  the  same  as  locking  the  house,  it  is  allowed  in  the  first 
place. 

Said  Samuel :  "  At  all  times  when  it  is  taught,  that  one  is  not 
culpable  of  performing  work  on  the  Sabbath,  it  is  meant  that, 
while  he  is  not  culpable,  he  must  not  perform  such  work  to  com- 
mence with,  excepting  in  the  three  following  instances:  One  of 
the  three  has  just  been  mentioned  (concerning  the  deer) ;  the 
second  is,  when  one  lances  a  wound  on  the  Sabbath;  if  the 
intention  is  to  extract  the  pus  contained  in  the  wound,  he  is  not 


2i8  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

culpable,  and  may  do  so  in  the  first  place ;  as  we  have  learned  in 
a  following  Mishna,  that  a  sewing  needle  may  be  used  to  remove 
a  splinter  from  the  flesh ;  the  third  is,  when  one  catches  a  snake 
on  the  Sabbath  and  he  did  so  in  order  to  escape  being  bitten,  he 
is  not  culpable  and  may  do  so  to  commence  with,  as  we  have 
learned  in  a  preceding  Mishna,  that  one  may  put  a  vessel  over  a 
serpent,  in  order  to  escape  being  bitten." 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

REGULATIONS   CONCERNING    THE    CATCHING    OF    REPTILES,  ANIMALS 

AND    BIRDS. 

MISHNA:  One  who  catches  or  wounds  any  one  of  the  eight 
kinds  of  reptiles  enumerated  in  the  Scriptures  (Lev.  xi.  29-30, 
viz,  :  the  weasel,  the  mouse,  the  tortoise,  the  hedgehog,  the 
chameleon,  the  lizard,  the  snail  and  the  mole)  is  culpable;  one 
who  wounds  worms  or  any  other  kind  of  reptiles  (not  enumer- 
ated above)  is  free.  One  who  catches  them  for  a  purpose  is 
culpable;  he  who  does  so  without  the  intention  (to  use  them)  is 
free.  He  who  catches  such  animals  or  birds  as  are  within  his 
domain  is  free,  he  who  wounds  them  is  culpable. 

GEMARA:  From  the  teaching  of  the  Mishna  that  the  rep- 
tiles (enumerated  above)  must  not  be  wounded,  it  is  evident 
that  such  reptiles  must  be  possessed  of  a  skin  (which  can  be 
wounded).  According  to  whose  opinion  is  this  ?  Said  Samuel: 
"  This  is  according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Johanan  ben  Nuri;  for 
he  so  stated  (in  Tract  Chulin).  Rabba  bar  R.  Huna,  however, 
in  the  name  of  Rabh  said :  It  may  also  be  assumed  that  the 
Mishna  is  in  accord  with  the  rabbis,  who  disagree  with  R. 
Johanan  ben  Nuri  only  where  defilement  is  concerned,  but  who 
agree  with  him  as  to  Sabbath.  And  as  regards  the  Sabbath 
they  (the  rabbis)  do  not  disagree  with  R.  Johanan.  Have  we 
not  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  that  one  who  caught  one  of  the  eight 
kinds  of  reptiles  enumerated  in  the  Scriptures,  or  who  wounds 
them,  is  culpable  and  that  this  applies  only  to  such  reptiles  as 
have  skins,  and  only  such  a  wound  is  called  incurable  which  has 
been  produced  by  the  blood  clotting  in  the  skin  and  remaining 
there,  even  when  no  blood  came  to  the  surface  ?  R.  Johanan 
ben  Nuri,  however,  states,  that  all  the  eight  reptiles  enumerated 
in  the  Scriptures  have  skins  (and  therefore  one  who  wounds 
any  of  them  is  culpable ;  hence  we  see  that  they  disagree  even 
as  regards  the  Sabbath).  Said  R.  Ashi :  The  first  Tana  of  the 
mentioned  Boraitha,  at  variance  with  R.  Johanan,  is  R.  Jehu- 
dah,  who  stated,  that  there  are  among  the  eight  such  as  have  no 

219 


220  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

skin ;  but  the  other  rabbis,  who  differ  with  R.  Johanan,  where 
defilement  is  concerned,  do  not  disagree  with  him  in  regard  to 
Sabbath.  Then  why  is  it  stated,  that  "  R.  Johanan  ben  Nuri, 
however,  states,  etc.,"  as  if  he  opposed  the  rabbis?  Read: 
"  Thus  states  R.  Johanan  ben  Nuri  and  his  opponents." 

''  Or  any  other  reptiles.''  How  is  it,  if  one  kills  them  ?  Is 
he  culpable  ?  The  Mishna  must  be  understood  that  if  one  only- 
wounds  them  he  is  not  culpable,  but  if  he  kills  them  he  is  cul- 
pable ?  According  to  whose  opinion  is  this  ?  Said  R.  Jeremiah : 
"  This  is  according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Eliezer,  as  stated  in  the 
first  chapter"  (page  22).  R.  Joseph  opposed  this:  "Thou 
sayest,  according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Eliezer  ?  The  rabbis 
only  differ  with  R.  Eliezer  when  such  reptiles  as  are  incapable 
of  breeding  are  concerned  (for  then  they  are  not  considered  as 
actual  living  beings);  but  as  to  reptiles  that  are  capable  of 
breeding,  they  also  agree,  that  one  who  kills  them  (on  the  Sab- 
bath) is  culpable  (because  that  would  be  taking  life,  and  taking 
life  is  prohibited  on  the  Sabbath). 

*  *  One  who  catches  them  for  a  purpose  is  culpable  ;  he  who  does 
so  without  any  intention  {to  use  them)  is  free."  According  to 
whose  opinion  is  this  teaching  ?  Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name 
of  Rabh :  It  is  according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon,  who 
states,  that  any  work  not  committed  for  its  own  sake  does  not 
make  one  culpable. 

Samuel  said:  "  One  who  takes  a  live  fish  out  of  the  water,  is 
culpable  as  soon  as  a  part  of  the  fish  as  large  as  a  Scla  has 
become  dry  (because  then  the  fish  cannot  live)."  Said  R.  Jose 
bar  Abhin :  Samuel  means  to  say,  that  he  is  not  culpable  unless 
a  place  as  big  as  a  Sela  become  dry  under  its  fins,  and  not  on  its 
body. 

Mar  bar  Hamduri  in  the  name  of  Samuel  said:  "  If  one 
thrust  his  hand  into  the  entrails  of  an  animal  and  displaced  a 
fcetus,  that  may  have  been  there,  he  is  culpable."  Why  so  ? 
Said  Rabha:  Mar  bar  Hamduri  explained  this  to  me  as  fol- 
lows: Did  not  R.  Shesheth  say,  that  if  a  man  tore  out  flax 
from  among  the  thorns  surrounding  it,  he  is  culpable,  because 
he  removed  a  thing  whence  it  grew  ?  So  also  in  this  case  he 
is  culpable  because  he  displaced  the  foetus  whence  it  grew.  Said 
Abayi :  The  same  is  the  case  with  one  who  tore  out  a  mushroom 
which  grows  near  a  vessel  filled  with  water,  because  he  removed 
an  object  whence  it  grew.  R.  Oshiyah  objected :  Did  we  not 
learn  that  one  who  tears  out  a  thing  from  a  flower-pot,  which  is 


TRACT   SABBATH.  221 

not  perforated,  is  not  culpable,  but  from  a  perforated  flower-pot 
he  is  culpable.  Why  should  he  be  culpable  in  this  case  ?  Be- 
cause a  thing  does  not  grow  in  a  flower-pot  which  is  not  perfo- 
rated, as  a  rule;  but  in  this  case  it  grows  in  its  usual  way. 

''He  zvho  catches  such  animals  or  birds  as  are  within  his 
domain,"  etc.  R.  Huna  said:  "  It  is  allowed  to  write  Tcphillin 
on  the  skin  of  a  bird  which  is  ritually  clean,"  Said  R.  Joseph: 
"  What  would  he  inform  us  ?  That  a  bird  has  a  skin  ?  This  is 
taught  in  the  Mishna,  for  it  says,  he  who  wounds  a  bird  is  cul- 
pable." Said  Abayi  to  R.  Joseph:  "  Mc  informs  us  of  a  very 
important  matter.  From  the  Mishna  wc  would  simply  know 
that  the  bird,  having  a  skin,  must  not  be  wounded,  but  we  might 
think,  that  such  a  skin,  being  porous,  must  not  be  used  for 
Tcpliillin.  Hence  he  informs  us,  that  it  may  also  be  used 
for  Tephillin,  as  it  was  said  in  Palestine  that  pores  which  do 
not  permit  of  ink  soaking  through  cannot  be  considered  as 
pores." 

Mar  the  son  of  Rabhina  asked  of  R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak: 
"Is  it  allowed  to  write  Tephillin  on  the  skin  of  a  fish  which  is 
rituall}'  clean?"  R.  Na'hman  answered:  "This  can  only  be 
decided  by  Elijah;  when  he  comes  again,  he  will  decide  whether 
it  is  allowed  or  not." 

Samuel  and  Qarna  were  sitting  on  the  banks  of  Lake  Malka. 
Samuel  noticed  that  a  ship  was  struggling  with  the  rough 
waters  and  a  man  was  suffering  in  consequence.  Said  Samuel  to 
Qarna:  "  It  seems  to  me,  that  a  great  man  is  coming  from  Pal- 
estine and  that  he  is  sick  at  the  stomach.  Go  and  see  what  ails 
him."  Ho  went  and  found  Rabh  on  the  ship,  and  asked  him: 
"  Whence  do  we  know  that  Tephillin  may  be  written  only  upon 
the  skin  of  a  ritually  clean  animal  ?"  Rabh  answered:  "  It  is 
written  [Exod,  xiii.  9]  :  '  In  order  that  the  law  of  the  Lord  shall 
be  in  thy  mouth,'  which  means,  that  the  Law  shall  be  written 
only  on  such  a  thing  as  thou  mayest  take  into  thy  mouth." 
Oarna  asked  him  again  :  "  How  do  we  know  that  blood  is  red  ?  " 
Rabh  answered  again:  "  Because  it  is  written  [II  Kings  iii.  22] : 
'  The  Moabites  saw  the  water  at  a  distance  as  red  as  blood.'  " 
(In  the  meantime  Rabh  felt  that  Qarna  was  quizzing  him.)  He 
asked  him,  "  What  is  thy  name  ?"  He  answered:  "  Qarna." 
Said  Rabh  :  "A Qarna  (thorn)  be  in  thy  eyes!  "  Finally  Samuel 
took  Rabh  to  his  own  house,  gave  him  barley-bread,  small  fishes, 
milk  and  such  things  as  tend  to  produce  looseness  of  the 
bowels,  but  did  not  show  him  the  place  to  excrementize  in.     So 

vol..  II. — 3 


t22  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Rabh  cursed  him  and  said:  "  May  the  one  who  wishes  to  make 
me  suffer,  not  be  able  to  rear  his  children."     So  it  was. 

The  rabbis  taught :  It  is  allowed  to  write  Tephillin  on  the 
skins  of  (ritually)  clean  animals  and  creatures,  also  upon  the 
skins  of  such  as  died  a  natural  death  and  were  not  slaughtered, 
and  it  is  an  ordinance  (instituted)  by  Moses  at  Sinai,  that  the 
Tephillin  are  wound  in  the  hairy  hide  of  such  animals,  whence 
the  skin  may  be  taken,  and  are  sewed  with  the  veins  of  such 
animals;  but  it  is  not  allowed  to  write  Tephillin  on  the  skins  of 
(ritually)  unclean  animals  and  creatures,  whether  such  animals 
were  slaughtered  or  naturally  expired.  This  question  was 
asked  by  a  Bathusee  of  R.  Joshua  of  the  city  of  Garsi. 
"  Whence  do  we  know  that  Tephillin  must  not  be  written  on 
the  skin  of  an  unclean  animal?"  "From  the  passage  [Lev. 
xiii.  9]:  'In  order  that  the  law  of  the  Lord  shall  be  in  thy 
mouth,'  which  means,  that  the  Law  shall  be  written  only  on 
such  a  thing  as  a  man  may  put  into  his  mouth."  "  According 
to  thy  argument,"  said  the  Bathusee,  "  Tephillin  should  not  be 
written  on  the  skin  of  a  (ritually)  clean  animal,  that  died  a  nat- 
ural death  (because  it  must  not  be  eaten  also)."  Answered  R. 
Joshua:  "  I  will  give  thee  an  instance  of  two  men,  who  incurred 
the  death  penalty.  One  was  duly  executed,  while  the  other 
died  at  the  moment  that  he  reached  the  gallows.  Which  is 
preferable  ?  Certainly  the  natural  death.  In  this  case  also,  why 
should  the  skin  of  the  animal  that  died  a  natural  death  not  be 
used  for  writing  the  Tephillin  thereon  ? "  "  According  to  that, 
then,"  said  the  Bathusee,  "  why  should  it  not  be  eaten  also  ?" 
Answered  R.  Joshua:  "It  is  written  [Deut.  xiv.  21]:  'Ye  shall 
not  eat  anything  that  dieth  of  itself,'  and  thou  wouldst  that  it 
should  be  eaten."  Answered  the  Bathusee:  "  Kaios"  (Greek 
KaXc;  =  nice,  well). 

MISHNA:  It  is  prohibited  to  prepare  brine  on  Sabbath,  but 
the  making  of  salt  water,  in  order  to  dip  one's  bread  into  it,  or 
to  use  for  seasoning  other  dishes  is  permitted.  Said  R.  Jose: 
Is  this  not  brine  ?  (What  is  the  difference  ?)  be  it  more  or  less 
salted  ?  Only  the  following  kind  of  salt  water  may  be  made:  If 
oil  is  first  put  into  the  water  or  into  the  salt. 

GEMARA:  How  should  the  Mishna  be  understood  ?  Said 
R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  "It  is  not  permitted  to 
make  a  great  deal  of  salt  water,  but  a  little  may  be  made." 

"  Said R.  Jose :  Is  this  not  brine ?  Be  it  more  or  less  salted'* 
The  schoolmen  asked  :  "  Does  R.  Jose,  by  making  that  state- 


TRACT   SABBATH.  223 

ment,  mean  to  say  that  both  should  be  prohibited  or  that  both 
be  allowed  ?"  Said  R.  Rabba  and  also  R.  Johanan:  "  R.  Jose 
meant  to  say,  that  both  should  be  prohibited."  Wc  have  also 
learned  this  in  a  Boraitha:  "  One  shall  not  make  a  great  deal  of 
salt  water  in  order  to  put  it  into  a  Gistar  (a  large  vessel)  filled 
with  things  requiring  a  soaking;  but  he  may  make  a  little  salt 
water  to  dip  his  bread  into  it  or  use  it  for  seasoning  other  dishes. 
Said  R.  Jose :  '  Because  one  is  more  and  the  other  less  salted  the 
former  should  be  prohibited  and  the  latter  should  be  permitted ; 
then  one  might  say  that  a  greater  act  of  labor  should  be  prohi- 
bited and  a  smaller  one  permitted  ?  Therefore,  I  say,  both  are 
not  allowed,  but  it  becomes  permissible,  if  oil  is  put  into  the 
water  or  into  the  salt,  the  main  thing  is  that  one  should  not  mix 
water  and  salt  to  commence  with.'  " 

R.  Judah  bar  Haviva  taught:  "One  shall  not  make  salt 
water  very  strong."  What  does  he  mean  by  "  very  strong  "  ? 
Rabba  and  R.  Joseph  bar  Aba  both  said:  "  If  one  put  an  egg 
into  the  water  and  the  egg  float  it  is  strong  salt  water."  How 
much  salt  must  be  used  for  such  water  ?  Said  Abayi :  "  Two- 
thirds  salt  and  one-third  water."  For  what  purpose  can  that 
be  used  ?     For  fish-brine. 

The  same  Judah  b.  Haviva  taught:  "One  must  not  salt 
pieces  of  radishes  and  eggs  on  the  Sabbath."  R.  Hizkyah  in 
the  name  of  Abayi  said:  "  Salting  radishes  is  not  allowed,  but 
salting  eggs  is." 

The  same  Judah  b.  Haviva  taught:  "If  citrons,  radishes 
and  eggs  are  eaten  without  the  peel  (in  the  case  of  an  egg,  the 
yolk  without  the  white),  they  remain  in  the  stomach." 

Rabhin  walked  behind  R.  Jeremiah  on  the  banks  of  the  sea 
of  Zidon.  Rabhin  asked  R.  Jeremiah:  "  Is  it  allowed  to  wash 
one's  self  in  this  water  on  Sabbath  ?  "  R.  Jeremiah  said  :  "  Yes, 
it  is."  Asked  Rabhin  again:  "  How  is  it  if  a  man  who  is  bath- 
ing in  this  water,  opens  and  closes  his  eyes,  so  that  the  water  has 
access  to  the  eyes  ?  "  Answered  R.  Jeremiah  :  "  I  never  heard 
of  just  such  a  case,  but  of  one  similar  to  it.  I  heard  R.  Zera 
say  at  one  time  in  the  name  of  R.  Mathne,  another  time  in  the 
name  of  Mar  Uqba,  both  of  whom  said,  that  the  father  of  Sam- 
uel differed  with  Levi  and  that  one  of  them  said,  that  pouring 
wine  on  the  eyes  as  a  remedy  is  allowed  but  pouring  wine  into 
the  eyes  is  not  allowed,  while  the  other  said  that  the  saliva  of  a 
man  who  had  not  broken  his  fast  is  a  remedy  for  the  eyes  and 
must  not  even  be  put  on  the  eyes;  but  Mar  Uqba  in  the  name 


224  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

of  Samuel  said :  A  man  may  soak  a  medicament  for  the  eyes  on 
Friday  in  water  and  may  then  use  the  water  on  Sabbath  with 
impunity." 

Bar  Levayi  was  standing  before  Mar  Uqba,  and  saw  the 
latter  opening  and  closing  his  eyes,  so  that  the  medicinal  water 
may  have  access  to  them.  Said  he  to  Mar  Uqba:  "  So  much 
Mar  Samuel  did  certainly  not  permit!  " 

R.  Yanai  sent  to  Mar  Uqba  a  request:  "  Let  master  send  us 
the  eye-salve  prescribed  by  Samuel  for  sore  eyes."  Mar  Uqba 
answered:  "  I  send  it  to  you,  so  that  you  do  not  think  me  par- 
simonious, but  Samuel  said,  that  bathing  the  eye  in  cold  water 
in  the  morning  and  bathing  the  hands  and  feet  in  warm  water 
at  night  is  better  than  any  medicine  for  the  eye  in  the  world." 
The  same  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  by  R.  Muna  in  the 
name  of  R.  Jehudah. 

The  same  R.  Muna  used  to  say:  "  As  soon  as  a  man  rises 
and  his  hand  touches  his  eye,  nose,  mouth,  ear  or  a  vein,  it  had 
better  be  chopped  off.  The  same  should  be  done  with  a  hand 
that  touches  a  pitcher  used  for  beer,  before  it  (the  hand)  is 
washed,  because  such  a  hand  causes  blindness,  deafness  and 
bad  odors." 

We  have  learned:  R.  Nathan  said:  ".The  eye  is  (like)  a 
princess  and  it  hurts  her  to  be  touched  by  a  hand  that  has  not 
been  washed  three  times."  R.  Johanan  says:  "  Puch  (a  pre- 
cious stone  or  a  certain  kind  of  paint  *)  applied  to  the  eye,  stills 
its  wrath,  dries  its  tears  and  causes  its. lashes  to  grow." 

Mar  Uqba  said:  "  One  who  (accidentally)  injured  his  hand 
or  foot  so  that  blood  flowed  (on  the  Sabbath)  may  steep  them 
in  wine  in  order  to  stop  the  flow,  with  impunity."  The  school- 
men asked :  "  May  he  do  this  in  vinegar  also  ?  "  Said  R.  Hillel 
to  R.  Ashi :  "  When  I  attended  the  school  of  R.  Kahana,  it  was 
said,  that  it  is  not  allowed  in  vinegar."  Said  Rabha:  "And 
the  men  of  the  city  of  Me'hutza,  who  are  very  delicate,  are 
generally  cured  by  wine  the  same  as  other  people  are  by 
vinegar." 

It  happened,  that  Rabhina  came  to  the  house  of  R,  Ashi  and 
saw  the  latter,  having  had  his  foot  trodden  upon  by  an  ass,  soak- 
ing it  in  vinegar.  Said  Rabhina  to  him :  "  Does  not  the  Master 
coincide  with  R.  Hillel,  Avho  said,  that  soaking  in  vinegar  is  not 
allowed  ?"      R,  Ashi  answered:  "  With  a  wound  on  the  instep 

*  See  II  Kingfs  ix.  30.  Isaiah  liv.  11  and  I  Chronicles  xxix.  2. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  225 

of  the  foot  and  the  back  of  the  hand  it  is  different,  because  R. 
Ada  b.  Mathne  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh,  that  a  wound  on  the 
back  of  the  hand  and  on  the  instep  of  the  foot  is  equal  to  an 
internal  wound  and  the  Sabbath  may  be  desecrated  on  its 
account." 

The  rabbis  taught :  "  One  may  wash  his  body  in  the  waters  of 
Gror,  Chamtan,  Essia  and  Tiberias  (all  of  which  are  salt  waters), 
but  it  is  not  allowed  to  bathe  one's  self  in  the  Great  Sea  and  not 
in  water  used  for  soaking  flax,  also  not  in  the  sea  of  Sodom." 
Is  this  not  contradictory  to  what  we  have  learned  in  the  Bora- 
itha,  viz.  :  "  One  may  bathe  in  the  Tiberias  and  in  the  Great 
Sea,  but  not  in  water  used  for  soaking  flax  and  in  the  sea  of 
Sodom."  This  presents  a  difficulty ;  for  in  the  Boraitha  bathing 
in  the  Great  Sea  is  permitted,  while  the  rabbis  prohibit  it. 
Said  R.  Johanan:  There  is  no  difficulty.  One  Boraitha  is  in 
accordance  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Meir,  while  the  other  is  in 
accord  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Jehudah  (who  differ  in  Tract 
Mikva'ath,  Chapter  V.,  Mishna  6).  R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak 
opposed  this,  and  said:  "  They  differ  only  as  regards  defilement, 
but  have  ye  heard  that  they  also  differ  concerning  the  Sabbath  ?  " 
Hence  R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak  explained  this  otherwise.  He 
said,  that  the  Boraitha  which  does  not  permit  bathing  in  the 
Great  Sea  refers  to  one  who  stays  in  the  water  some  length  of 
time  (and  it  is  obvious  that  this  is  done  on  account  of  his 
health).  Now,  if  we  say,  that  the  one  Boraitha  refers  to  a  man 
who  stays  in  the  water  for  some  time,  we  must  assume,  that  the 
other  Boraitha  refers  to  one  who  does  not  stay  long,  and  if  this 
is  so,  why  should  not  the  one  (who  does  not  stay  long)  be  per- 
mitted to  bathe  even  in  the  water  used  for  soaking  flax  ?  Have 
we  not  learned  in  another  Boraitha:  "One  may  bathe  in  the 
Tiberias,  in  fla.x-water  or  in  the  sea  of  Sodom,  even  if  his  head 
be  scrofulous,  provided  he  does  not  stay  long  in  the  water"  ? 
Therefore  we  must  explain,  that  the  difficulty  existing  between 
the  two  former  Boraithas  concerning  the  Great  Sea  is:  that  the 
one  prohibiting  bathing  in  the  Great  Sea  refers  to  bad  water 
which  is  not  usually  used  for  bathing,  while  the  other  refers  to 
the  good  water  generally  used  by  bathers  and  in  both  the  case 
refers  to  one  who  stays  in  the  water  for  some  time. 

MISHNA:  It  is  not  allowed  to  eat  Greek  hyssop  (a  remedy 
for  worms)  on  the  Sabbath,  because  it  is  not  food  for  healthy 
people.  It  is  allowed,  however,  to  eat  yoeser  (wild  rosemary) 
and  to  drink  shepherd-blossom  (tea,  an  antidote  for  poisonous 


226  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

beverages).  It  is  permitted  to  partake  of  all  usual  eatables  and 
beverages  on  the  Sabbath  as  medicaments  with  the  exception 
of  tree-water  (water  of  a  certain  spring)  and  root-tea  (a  compound 
of  gum,  herbs,  and  powdered  roots),  because  the  two  latter  serve 
only  as  a  remedy  for  jaundice.  At  the  same  time  it  is  permitted 
to  drink  tree-water  to  quench  one's  thirst,  and  one  may  anoint 
himself  with  root-oil  but  not  as  a  remedy. 

GEMARA:  "//  is  alloived,  however,  to  eat  wild  rosemary,'' 
etc.  For  what  purpose  is  it  eaten  ?  To  drive  out  worms  in 
one's  liver.  What  is  it  eaten  with  ?  With  seven  white  dates. 
What  does  the  illness  (requiring  this  remedy)  arise  from  ?  From 
the  eating  of  meat  broiled  over  live  coals  and  the  drinking  of 
water  immediately  after  the  eating  on  an  empty  stomach  or 
from  eating  fat  meat,  beef,  nuts  or  Rapa-twigs  when  eaten  on 
an  empty  stomach  and  immediately  washed  down  with  water. 

The  mother  of  R.  A'hadboy  b.  Ami  made  a  remedy  for  a 
man  who  had  imbibed  poison  of  an  adder  by  cooking  laurel 
leaves  in  a  cupful  of  beer,  giving  it  to  the  man  to  drink,  then 
clearing  out  the  coals  from  a  burning  hearth,  placing  a  brick  on 
the  hearth  and  making  him  sit  on  that  brick  until  the  poison 
left  the  man  in  the  shape  of  a  green  fern.  R,  Ivia  said,  that  she 
did  not  cook  the  laurel  leaves  in  beer  but  in  a  quarter  lug  of  milk 
of  a  white  goat. 

One  who  swallowed  a  (small)  snake  should  eat  kostos  (an 
Indian  root  of  which  a  precious  salve  was  made,  called  in  the 
Bible  onycha)  in  salt  and  should  run  three  miles.  R.  Simeon 
b.  Ashi  once  saw  a  man  who  had  swallowed  a  snake,  so  he  dis- 
guised himself  as  a  Persian  horseman,  called  to  the  man,  com- 
pelled him  to  eat  kostos  with  salt,  then  chased  him  for  three 
miles.  In  consequence  of  fright  the  man  then  vomited  the 
snake  piece  by  piece. 

One  who  was  bitten  by  a  snake  should  get  a  bearing  (female) 
ass,  tear  her  open,  take  out  the  foetus,  and  apply  it  to  the 
wound. 

One  who  was  encircled  by  a  snake  should  run  to  the  water, 
take  a  basket,  place  it  over  the  snake's  head,  and  as  soon  as  the 
snake  winds  itself  around  the  basket,  throw  it  into  the  water 
and  escape. 

One  who  is  pursued  by  a  snake  should,  if  he  is  in  company 
of  a  friend,  jump  on  the  friend's  back  and  have  the  friend  carry 
him  at  least  four  ells  so  as  to  hide  the  scent  of  his  footsteps, 
or,  if  alone,  should  jump  over  a  stream  or  pond  of  water.      At 


TRACT   SABBATH.  227 

night  he  should  place  his  bed  on  four  empty  casks,  then  tie  four 
cats  to  the  casks,  and  sleep  in  an  unroofed  space.  He  should 
also  place  a  lot  of  twigs  and  dry  branches  in  front  of  his  bed, 
so  that  if  the  snake  glide  among  them  they  will  rustle,  in  which 
event  the  cats  will  hear  the  noise  and  devour  the  snake.  H 
one  is  pursued  by  a  snake,  he  should  run  to  a  sandy  place,  where 
it  is  hard  for  a  snake  to  glide. 

"  //  is  permitted  to  partake  of  all  usual  eatables,"  etc. 
What  does  the  Mishna  mean  to  add  by  the  word  "  all  "?  A  milt, 
which  is  good  for  the  teeth  (although  it  is  bad  for  a  weak  stom- 
ach), or  bran,  which  is  good  for  the  stomach  (but  bad  for  the 
teeth).  What  does  the  Mishna  mean  to  add  by  the  word  "  all," 
referring  to  beverages  ?  Water  of  Izlat  (Kaflfir-com)  boiled  with 
vinegar. 

"  With  the  exception  of  tree-water ."  We  have  learned  in  a 
Boraitha:  "  With  the  exception  of  prickly  water."  One  who 
teaches  prickly  water  does  so  because  the  water  pricks  the  gall, 
and  one  who  teaches  tree-water  refers  to  water  running  out  of 
two  trees  ?  What  does  he  mean  by  this  ?  Said  Rabba  bar 
Brona:  "  There  are  two  date-trees  in  Palestine  that  are  called 
Thalai,  and  between  them  is  a  spring  of  water;  the  first  cup  of 
this  water  produces  a  weak  sensation  in  the  stomach,  the  second 
cup  purges  and  the  third  leaves  the  stomach  as  clear  as  when 
imbibed."  Said  Ula:  "  I  drank  the  Babylonian  beer  with  better 
effects  than  that  tree-water,  but  it  is  only  then  effective  if 
drunk  for  the  first  time  in  forty  days.  R.  Joseph  said:  "  The 
water  called  prickly  water  above  is  Eg>'ptian  beer,  which  is  one 
third  barley,  one  third  wild  saffron,  and  one  third  salt."  R. 
Papa  said :  It  is  one  third  wheat,  one  third  wild  saffron,  and 
one  third  salt,  and  it  should  be  drunk  between  Passover  and 
Pentecost,  when  it  will  relieve  constipation  and  stop  diarrhoea. 

"  And  root-tea.''  What  is  root-tea?  Said  R.  Johanan :  It 
is  made  of  Alexandrian  gum,  alum,  and  garden  saffron,  each 
the  weight  of  one  Zuz,  and  ground  together.  To  one  who 
suffers  with  too  frequent  menstruation,  three  cups  of  this  tea 
should  be  given  in  wine,  and  she  will  not  be  barren.  For  jaun- 
dice two  cups  are  to  be  administered,  in  beer,  but  the  patient 
will  be  barren  ever  after.  May  this  be  done  ?  Have  we  not 
learned  in  a  Boraitha:  Whence  do  we  know  that  castrating  a 
man  is  prohibited  ?  From  the  passage  [Lev.  xxii.  24]:  "  And 
in  your  land  shall  ye  not  make  the  like."  Which  means,  ye 
shall   not  do  this  on  your  own  bodies.      So  said  R.   Hanina  ? 


228  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

This  is  said  only  in  reference  to  one  who  has  the  intention  of 
making  one  a  eunuch,  but  not  with  reference  to  one  who  admin- 
isters the  remedy  for  jaundice,  and  incidentally  makes  one  impo- 
tent; as  R.  Johanan  said:  "  One  who  wishes  to  castrate  a  cock 
shall  cut  his  comb,  and  thus  the  cock  will  become  impotent." 
Did  not  R.  Ashi  say,  that  a  cock  whose  comb  is  cut  off  is  not 
rendered  impotent  thereby,  but,  being  very  proud,  will  have  no 
more  coition  with  hens  on  that  account  ?  Were  he  actually  ren- 
dered impotent,  it  would  not  be  allowed  to  remove  his  comb, 
for  it  is  written  [ibid.]  :  "  And  in  your  land  shall  ye  not  make  the 
like."  It  is  allowed  to  give  a  man  two  cups  of  root-tea  for 
jaundice,  providing  he  was  already  impotent.  But  even  this  is 
prohibited  (in  Menachoth  56) !  Say  rather  it  may  be  given  to  a 
woman  who  is  not  subject  to  the  command  of  bearing  children. 

MISHNA:  One  who  suffers  with  toothache  must  not  gargle 
vinegar  for  it,  but  he  may  dip  something  in  vinegar  and  apply  it, 
and  if  the  pain  is  relieved  thereby,  he  need  have  no  fear  of  the 
consequences.  One  who  has  pains  in  his  loins  must  not  rub 
them  with  wine  or  vinegar,  but  may  anoint  them  with  oil ;  not 
with  rose-oil,  however.  Children  of  princes  may  anoint  their 
wounds  even  with  rose-oil,  because  it  is  their  wont  even  on 
week-days  to  anoint  themselves  with  rose-oil.  R.  Simeon  said : 
"  All  Israelites  must  be  considered  as  children  of  princes." 

GEMARA:  R.  Aha  bar  Papa  asked  R.  Abuha  concerning 
the  following  contradiction  :  "  The  Mishna  teaches,  that  one  who 
has  a  toothache  must  not  gargle  with  vinegar,  implying  thereby, 
that  vinegar  is  a  remedy  for  toothache,  and  still  we  find  in  the 
passage  [Proverbs  x.  26]  :  '  As  vinegar  is  to  the  teeth,  and  as 
smoke  is  to  the  eyes.'  "  This  presents  no  difficulty.  The 
Mishna  refers  to  an  injured  tooth,  whereas  the  passage  refers  to 
sound  teeth,  which  are  put  on  edge  by  vinegar. 

'' Must  not  gargle  vinegar.''  Have  we  not  learned  in  a  Bo- 
raitha,  that  it  is  not  allowed  to  gargle  vinegar  and  then  spit  it 
out,  but  if  swallowed  afterwards  gargling  is  allowed  ?  Said 
Abayi :  Such  is  also  the  intent  of  the  Mishna,  meaning,  if  he 
spit  out  after  gargling. 

''One  who  has  pains  in  his  loins''  etc.  Said  R.  Aba  b.  Zabhda 
in  the  name  of  Rabh :  The  law  according  to  the  opinion  of  R. 
Simeon  prevails.  Shall  we  assume  that  Rabh  holds  with  R. 
Simeon  ?  Did  not  R.  Simi  bar  Hyya  say  in  the  name  of  Rabh, 
that  a  bung-head  tied  around  with  a  piece  of  cloth  must  not  be 
hammered  into  a  barrel  on  a  festival  (because  the  barrel  being 


TRACT   SABBATH.  329 

full  of  wine,  the  cloth  will  absorb  some,  and  by  being  pressed 
into  the  hole  the  wine  absorbed  will  run  out,  and  wringing  a 
thing  is  not  allowed),  although  the  wine  runs  out  of  its  own 
accord,  and  not  through  the  intention  of  the  man;  but  accord- 
ing to  R.  Simeon  this  would  be  permitted  ?  Where  an  act  is 
concerned  which  will  most  certainly  be  consummated,  even  with- 
out the  agency  of  man,  as  the  head  of  a  creature  being  removed, 
death  must  surely  follow,  R.  Simeon  also  admits,  that  it  is  not 
allowed.  We  have  learned  elsewhere,  however,  explicitly,  that 
Hyya  bar  Ashi  said,  that  Rabh  holds  according  to  R.  Jehudah, 
and  Samuel  according  to  R.  Simeon  ?  (How  can  it  be  said  that 
Rabh  holds  with  R.  Simeon  ?)  Said  Rabha:  I  and  the  lion  of 
our  society  {i.e.,  R.  Hyya  bar  Abhin)  explained  this  as  follows: 
The  ordinance  prevails  according  to  R.  Simeon,  that  (rose-oil)  is 
allowed,  but  not  for  the  reason  advanced  by  R.  Simeon.  R. 
Simeon  says,  that  all  Israelites  are  considered  as  princes,  and 
therefore,  even  in  such  places  where  rose-oil  is  very  costly,  one 
may  also  anoint  himself  with  it ;  but  Rabh  says  it  is  allowed, 
because,  where  he  (Rabh)  resided,  rose-oil  was  very  cheap  (but 
where  it  is  costly  it  is  not  allowed). 


CHAPTER   XV. 

REGULATIONS     CONCERNING     THE     TYING     AND     UNTYING     OF     KNOTS 

ON    THE    SABBATH. 

MISHNA:  Following  are  the  knots  for  the  tying  of  which 
one  becomes  culpable.  The  knot  of  the  camel-drivers  (made  on 
the  guiding-ring)  and  the  knot  of  the  seamen  (made  on  the 
bow  of  a  ship) ;  just  as  one  becomes  culpable  for  tying  them, 
so  also  one  becomes  culpable  for  untying  them.  R.  Meir 
said:  "  One  does  not  become  culpable  for  any  knots  that  can  be 
untied  with  one  hand." 

GEMARA:  What  is  the  meaning  of  a  knot  of  the  camel- 
drivers  and  a  knot  of  seamen  ?  Shall  we  assume,  that  by  such  a 
knot  is  meant  the  one  that  is  tied  in  attaching  the  guiding-line 
suspended  from  the  nose-ring  of  a  camel  to  something  else,  and 
also  the  knot  made  in  attaching  the  hawser  of  a  ship  to  a  cap- 
stan on  the  dock  ?  (Such  knots  are  not  permanent,  why  should 
the  tying  of  them  be  prohibited  ?)  Nay;  by  that  knot  is  meant 
the  one  made  in  attaching  the  guiding-line  to  the  nose-ring  and 
the  hawser  to  the  ship  itself  (both  of  which  are  permanent 
knots). 

MISHNA:  There  are  knots  on  account  of  which  one  does 
not  become  culpable,  as  in  the  case  of  a  camel-driver's  or  sea- 
man's knot.  A  woman  may  tie  the  slit  of  her  chemise,  the 
bands  of  her  hood,  the  bands  of  her  girdle,  the  straps  of  her 
shoes  and  sandals;  also  the  bands  of  leather  flasks  (filled)  with 
wine  or  oil,  and  of  a  pot  of  meat.  R.  Eliezer,  the  son  of 
Jacob,  says:  "  One  may  tie  a  rope  in  front  of  cattle,  in  order 
that  they  may  not  escape."  One  may  tie  a  bucket  (over  the 
well)  with  his  girdle,  but  not  with  a  rope.  R.  Jehudah  permits 
this  to  be  done  with  a  rope  also.  For  a  rule  was  laid  down  by 
R.  Jehudah:  One  is  not  culpable  for  any  knot  which  is  not  per- 
manently fastened. 

GEMARA:  Is  there  not  a  difficulty  in  understanding  the 
Mishna  itself  ?  The  first  part  states,  that  there  arc  knots  on 
account  of  which  one  does  not   become  culpable,  etc.,  imply- 

230 


TRACT   SABBATH.  231 

ing,  therefore,  that,  while  one  who  ties  them  does  not  become 
liable  for  a  sin-offering,  at  the  same  time  he  must  not  do  it  to 
commence  with.  The  latter  part,  however,  says,  that  a  woman 
fnay  tie  the  slit  of  her  chemise,  etc.,  implying,  then,  that  she 
may  do  it  in  the  first  place?  The  Mishna  means:  There  are 
some  knots  for  the  tying  of  which  one  does  not  become  culpable, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  knots  of  the  camel-drivers,  etc.,  and  they 
are:  The  knots  by  means  of  which  the  guiding-line  is  attached 
to  the  nose-ring,  and  the  knots  by  means  of  which  the  hawsers 
are  attached  to  the  ship  itself.  For  tying  such  knots  one  docs 
not  become  liable  for  a  sin-offering,  but  he  must  not  make  them 
to  commence  with  (because  at  times  the  knot  is  left  on  the  nose- 
ring or  on  the  ship  for  some  time),  and  there  are  other  knots 
which  majf  be  tied  in  the  first  place,  such  as  the  slit  of  a 
woman's  chemise,  etc. ;  what  would  he  inform  us  ?  Is  it  not 
self-evident,  that  a  woman  must  tie  the  slit  in  her  chemise.  The 
case  treated  of  is  where  a  chemise  has  two  slits,  an  upper  and 
a  lower,  and  it  can  be  put  on  (over  the  head)  even  if  the  lower 
one  is  tied.  We  might  assume,  then,  that  only  the  upper  one  of 
the  slits  would  be  permitted  to  be  tied  ;  he  therefore  informs  us, 
that  both  the  upper  and  the  lower  may  be  tied  and  untied. 

"  TAe  bands  of  her  hood."  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  The 
case  is,  that  the  bands  of  the  hood  are  always  tied,  and  the 
woman  slips  on  the  hood  without  untying  or  tying  the  bands, 
and  we  might  assume  that  for  this  reason  the  knot  is  considered 
permanent;  he  therefore  informs  us,  that  if  a  hair  become  entan- 
gled in  the  hood,  the  woman  may  tie  and  untie  the  bands. 

The  straps  of  her  shoes  and  sandals,"  etc.  R.  Jehudah, 
the  brother  of  R.  Sala  the  Pious,  had  a  pair  of  sandals,  which 
were  sometimes  worn  by  him  and  sometimes  by  his  child.  He 
came  to  Abayi  and  asked  him  whether  he  might  tie  and  untie 
them  (on  Sabbath).  Said  Abayi:  "  He  who  does  this  uninten- 
tionally becomes  liable  for  a  sin-offering."  Said  R.  Jehudah  to 
him:  "  If  thou  hadst  said,  that  one  is  not  culpable  for  doing 
this,  but  that  it  must  not  be  done  to  commence  with,  it  would 
seem  strange  to  me ;  thou  sayest  now,  that  one  is  liable  for  a  sin- 
offering."  Asked  Abayi:  "Why  so?"  Answered  R.  Jehu- 
dah: "  Because  on  week-days  I  sometimes  also  wear  the  sandals, 
and  (if  my  child  wishes  to  use  them)  I  untie  them  and  adjust 
them  to  the  child's  foot."  Answered  Abayi:  "  If  such  be  the 
case,  they  may  be  tied  or  untied  (on  the  Sabbath)  to  commence 
with." 


232  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

R.  Jeremiah  was  walking  behind  R.  Abuha  on  unclaimed 
ground,  and  the  band  of  his  sandal  having  been  torn  off,  he 
asked  R.  Abuha  what  to  do.  R.  Abuha  told  him  to  take  damp 
seaweeds,  which  an  animal  can  eat  (and  which  may  therefore  be 
handled  on  Sabbath),  and  tie  his  sandal. 

Abayi  stood  before  R.  Joseph  in  private  ground,  and  the 
banc'  of  one  of  his  sandals  becoming  torn  off,  he  asked  R. 
Joseph  what  to  do.  Said  R.  Joseph:  "  Leave  thy  sandal  here 
and  walk  without  it."  Asked  Abayi:  "  Wherein  does  my  case 
differ  from  that  of  R.  Jeremiah  ?"  Answered  R.  Joseph:  "  R. 
Jeremiah's  sandal  was  torn  off  in  unclaimed  ground,  where,  had 
he  left  it,  it  would  have  been  lost,  but  thine  Is  in  my  yard  and 
will  be  safe."  Said  Abayi:  "But  the  sandal  is  a  perfect  vessel; 
for  I  can  put  it  on  my  other  foot  and  then  it  will  not  fall  off. 
Why  should  I  not  be  permitted  to  handle  it?"  R.  Joseph 
answered:  "Because  we  learned  elsewhere  in  regard  to  Cha- 
litzah  that  R.  Johanan  interpreted  a  Boraitha  in  accordance  with 
R.  Jehudah,  who  says,  that  if  the  band  of  a  sandal  was  torn 
off,  the  sandal  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  vessel.  We  must  assume, 
therefore,  that  the  ordinance  according  to  R.  Jehudah  prevails." 

"  A /so  the  bands  of  leather  flasks  filled  with  oil  or  wine,''  etc. 
Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  The  case  treated  of  is  where  the  flasks 
had  two  mouths,  and  lest  we  assume  that  only  one  of  them 
may  be  tied  and  untied,  he  informs,  us  that  both  may  be  tied. 

"  And  of  a  pot  of  meat.''  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  The 
Mishna  means  to  state,  that  even  if  the  pot  have  an  opening  at 
the  bottom  it  might  be  assumed  that  the  knot  tied  around  the 
mouth  of  the  pot  is  permanent  and  should  not  be  untied.  We 
are  informed  that  it  may  be  untied,  nevertheless. 

'' R.  Eliezery  the  son  offacob,  said,"  etc.  Is  this  not  self-evi- 
dent ?  The  case  treated  of  is  where  there  were  two  ropes,  one 
tied  higher  up  and  the  other  lower.  We  might  assume,  that 
because  the  lower  one  is  tied  permanently  one  may  not  untie 
it;  therefore  he  informs  us  that  both  may  be  tied  and  untied. 
Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  "  The  Halakha  pre- 
vails according  to  R.  Eliezer  ben  Jacob." 

One  may  tie  a  bucket  with  his  girdle,  but  not  with  a  rope,  * ' 
etc.  What  kind  of  a  rope  is  not  permitted  ?  Is  it  an  ordinary 
rope?  Why  does  R.  Jehudah  permit  it  ?  It  remains  permanently 
tied  ?  Shall  we  assume  that  it  refers  to  the  rope  of  a  weaver  ? 
Why  is  it  not  permitted  ?  It  will  surely  be  removed,  because 
the  weaver  will  need  it  ?    Or  is  it  prohibited  simply  as  a  precau- 


TRACT    SABBATH.  233 

tionary  measure,  lest  some  one  tic  the  bucket  with  an  ordinary 
rope,  and  R.  Jchudah  does  not  entertain  this  apprehension  ? 
Then  it  is  contradictory  to  the  following  Boraitha:  "  A  rope  fas- 
tened to  a  bucket  which  became  torn,  should  not  be  tied  into  a 
firm  knot,  but  simply  tied  into  a  loop."  R.  Jehudah  says:  "  It 
should  be  joined  together  with  the  owner's  girdle,  but  it  must 
not  be  tied  into  a  loop."  This  would  be  a  case  of  where  both 
the  rabbis  and  R.  Jehudah  contradict  themselves.  There  is  no 
contradiction  at  all.  As  for  the  rabbis,  they  hold,  that  an  ordi- 
nary rope  may  be  mistaken  for  the  rope  of  a  weaver,  because 
both  are  called  ropes,  but  a  loop  cannot  be  mistaken  for  a  knot, 
because  they  have  different  names.  As  for  R.  Jehudah,  he  pro- 
hibits a  loop  to  be  made,  not  because  he  holds  that  a  loop  may 
be  mistaken  for  a  knot,  but  because  the  loop  in  this  case  is  equal 
to  a  knot. 

R.  Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Hyya  b.  Ashi,  quoting  Rabh, 
said:  "  One  may  bring  a  rope  from  his  house  and  can  tic  it  to 
the  cow,  and  then  fasten  it  to  the  crib." 

R.  Johanan  asked  of  R.  Jehudah  bar  Levayi :  "  May  weaving 
utensils,  either  upper  or  lower,  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath  ?" 
Answered  R.  Jehudah:  "  Nay;  they  may  not."  "  Why  so  ?  " 
"  Because  on  week-days  they  are  also  never  used  for  any  other 
purpose  (being  too  heavy) ;  hence  they  are  always  used  for 
weaving  alone  (and  therefore  must  not  be  handled  on  Sabbath)." 

MISHNA:  One  may  fold  his  clothes  (just  removed)  even 
four  or  five  times  (on  the  Sabbath).  On  the  eve  of  Sabbath 
one  may  prepare  his  beds  for  use  on  the  Sabbath,  but  not  at  the 
close  of  Sabbath  for  use  after  the  Sabbath  is  gone.  R.  Ishmael 
says:  "  One  may  arrange  his  clothes  and  prepare  his  beds  on  the 
Day  of  Atonement  for  the  Sabbath;  further,  the  sacrificial  tal- 
low left  over  from  the  Sabbath  may  be  offered  up  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement  (if  the  two  succeed  one  another,  before  the  Jewish 
calendar  was  arranged) ;  but  not  such  as  is  left  over  from  the 
Day  of  Atonement  on  the  Sabbath."  R.  Aqiba  said:  "  Neitlier 
that  (tallow)  left  over  from  the  Sabbath  may  be  offered  up  on 
the  Day  of  Atonement,  nor  that  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  on 
the  Sabbath." 

GEMARA:  The  school  of  R.  Yanai  said:  The  Mishna  only 
permits  the  folding  of  clothes  by  one  man,  but  not  by  two,  and 
also  only  in  case  the  clothes  are  new,  but  not  if  they  are  old 
(because  old  clothes  are  better  preserved  by  folding).  New 
clothes  must  only  be  folded  if  they  are  white  clothes,  but  not  if 


234  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

they  are  colored.  White  clothes  may  be  folded  only  if  they 
constitute  all  the  garments  possessed  by  the  man ;  but  if  he  had 
others,  he  must  not  fold  even  those,  as  we  have  learned  in  a 
Tosephta:  "  The  family  of  R.  Gamaliel  did  not  even  fold  white 
clothes,  because  they  had  others  for  a  change." 

R.  Huna  said:  "  If  one  have  a  change  of  clothes  for  the 
Sabbath,  he  should  change  them ;  if  not,  he  should  at  least  let 
them  down.  "  *  R.  Saphra  opposed  this: "  If  one  let  down  his 
garments,  he  will  be  considered  as  a  vain  man."  If  he  does 
this  only  on  the  Sabbath  and  not  on  week-days,  he  will  not  be 
considered  vain  but  simply  as  one  desirous  of  keeping  the  Sab- 
bath with  due  respect,  as  it  is  written  [Isaiah  Iviii.  13]:  "  And 
honor  it  by  not  doing  thy  usual  pursuits."  "Honor  it"  is 
meant  to  imply  that,  by  wearing  different  clothes  on  the  Sabbath, 
the  Sabbath  should  be  honored,  for  R.  Johanan  calls  clothes  signs 
of  honor,  and  through  clothes  a  man  is  honored.  "  By  not 
doing  thy  usual  pursuits  "  means  that  the  walk  on  the  Sabbath 
should  not  be  as  on  week-days  [ibid,  ibid.] :  "  By  not  following 
thy  own  business,"  means  to  say,  that  only  thy  own  business  is 
not  allowed,  but  heavenly  business  is.  "  And  speaking  (vain) 
words":  the  mode  of  speaking  on  Sabbath  should  not  belike 
that  on  week-days.  Speaking  is  not  allowed,  but  thinking  is. 
(All  this  is  perfectly  proper,  not  to  dress  as  on  week-days,  nor 
to  speak  as  on  week-days) ;  but  what  does  a  different  walk  on  the 
Sabbath  signify  ?  It  signifies,  that  one  should  not  make  long 
strides  on  the  Sabbath,  as  Rabbi  asked  of  R.  Ishmael  b.  R.  Jose : 
"May  one  make  long  strides  on  the  Sabbath?"  Answered 
he:  "  May  one  do  so  even  on  week-days  ?  For  I  say,  that  a 
long  stride  deprives  a  man  of  a  five  hundredth  part  of  the  light 
of  his  eyes.  A  remedy  for  this  is,  however,  the  drinking  of 
the  wine  over  which  the  benediction  is  made  on  the  eve  before 
the  Sabbath." 

It  is  written  [Ruth  iii.  3]  :  "  Therefore  bathe  and  anoint  thy- 
self, and  put  thy  garments  upon  thee,"  by  which,  said  R.  Ela- 
zar,  is  meant  the  Sabbath  garments. 

It  is  written  [Proverbs  ix.  9] :  "  Give  to  the  wise  (instruc- 
tion), and  he  will  become  yet  wiser."  Said  R.  Elazar:  By 
that   is  meant   Ruth  the  Moabite  and   the  Prophet  Samuel  of 


*  The  poor  of  those  days,  when  at  work — i.e. ,  on  week  days — used  to  roll  up  their 
long  garments  in  order  not  to  be  hindered  by  them  while  at  work.  The  rich  used  to 
wear  long  garments  at  all  times  ;  hence  the  above  decree  of  R.  Huna. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  235 

Ramah.  Naomi  said  to  Ruth:  "Therefore  bathe  and  anoint 
thyself,  and  put  thy  garments  upon  thee,  and  go  down  to  the 
threshing-floor,"  but  Ruth  did  as  it  is  written  further  [ibid.  6]: 
"  And  she  went  down  unto  the  threshing-floor,  and  did  in 
accordance  with  all  that  her  mother-in-law  had  commanded  her," 
which  means,  that  she  first  went  down  to  the  threshing-floor  and 
then  dressed  herself,  in  order  not  to  soil  her  clothes.  As  for 
Samuel,  when  Eli  said  unto  him  [I  Samuel  iii.  9]  :  "  Go,  lie  down  ; 
and  it  shall  be,  if  he  call  thee,  that  thou  shalt  say,  Speak,  Lord ; 
for  thy  servant  heareth,"  he  did  at  the  time  as  it  is  written 
[ibid.  10]:  "  And  the  Lord  came,  and  placed  himself,  and  called 
as  at  previous  times,  Samuel,  Samuel.  And  Samuel  said. 
Speak,  for  thy  servant  heareth,"  but  did  not  say,  "  Speak, 
Jehovah,"  as  he  was  told  to  do  by  Eli  (because,  not  knowing 
who  was  speaking,  he  did  not  want  to  speak  the  Lord's  name  in 
vain). 

It  is  written  [Ruth  ii.  3] :  "  And  she  went,  and  came,  and 
gleaned  in  the  field  after  the  reapers."  Said  R.  Elazar:  She 
went  and  came  to  and  fro  until  she  found  such  men  as  were  fit 
company  for  her.  "  Then  said  Boaz  unto  his  young  man  that 
was  appointed  over  the  reapers.  Whose  maiden  is  this  ?"  [ibid. 
5].  Was  it  proper  for  Boaz  to  inquire  whose  maiden  she  was  ? 
We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha :  He  (Boaz)  noticed  that  she  was 
very  modest,  for  when  gleaning  from  the  sheaves,  she  did  so 
standing  if  the  sheaves  were  also  standing,  and  if  the  sheaves 
were  on  the  ground,  she  did  not  stoop,  lest  she  reveal  some  of 
her  form,  but  sat  down  and  gleaned  in  that  position. 

But  keep  close  company  with  my  own  maidens  "  [ibid.  8]. 
Was  it  proper  for  Boaz  to  say  "  my  own  maidens  "?  Was  it  his 
custom  to  mingle  with  the  women  ?  Said  R.  Elazar:  "  Because 
Boaz  saw  that  '  Orpah  kissed  her  mother-in-law;  but  Ruth 
cleaved  unto  her '  [ibid.  i.  14],  he  thought,  that  if  she  were  such 
a  woman  it  would  be  proper  for  him  to  associate  with  her." 

"  And  Boaz  said  unto  her.  At  mealtime  come  near  hither 
(halom)  "  [ibid.  ii.  14].  Said  R.  Elazar:  "  By  the  word  '  halom  ' 
(near  hither)  Boas  hinted  to  her  that  from  her  would  spring 
the  kingdom  of  David,  who  used  the  expression  '  halom,'  as  it 
is  written  in  [II  Samuel  vii.  18] :  '  Then  went  King  David  in  and 
sat  down  before  the  Lord,  and  he  said.  Who  am  I,  O  Lord 
Eternal  ?  and  what  is  my  house,  that  thou  hast  brought  me  as 
far  as  hitherward  (halom)  ? '  " 

"And  eat  of  the  bread,  and  dip  thy  morsel  in  the  vinegar" 


236  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

[Ruth  ii.  14].  "  From  this  it  can  be  inferred,  that  vinegar  is 
good  for  (relieving  excessive)  heat,"  said  R.  Elazar.  But  R. 
Samuel  ben  Na'hmeni  said:  "  This  was  also  a  hint  to  Ruth,  that 
from  her  would  spring  forth  a  son,  whose  deeds  would  be  sour 
as  vinegar,  and  that  was  King  Mcnasseh." 

"  And  she  seated  herself  beside  the  reapers"  [ibid.  ibid.]. 
Said  R.  Elazar:  "  Beside  the  reapers  and  not  between  them, 
was  also  a  hint  that  the  kingdom  of  David  would  eventually  be 
divided," 

"  And  he  reached  her  parched  corn,  and  she  ate,  and  was 
satisfied,  and  had  some  left."  Said  R.  Elazar:  (This  is  a  refer- 
ence to  the  kingdom  of  David)  "  Ate  at  the  time  of  David, 
was  satisfied  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  had  some  left  in'the 
time  of  King  Chizkyah."  Others  say:  "  Ate  during  the  days  of 
David  and  Solomon,  was  satisfied  during  the  days  of  Chizkyah, 
and  had  some  left  in  the  time  of  R.  Jehudah  Hanassi  (a  de- 
scendant of  David),  whose  coachman  even,  according  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Master,  was  said  to  be  richer  than  the  Shahur 
(king,  shah)  of  Persia. "  In  a  Boraitha,  however,  we  have  learned  : 
(This  passage  does  not  refer  to  the  kingdom  of  David  but  to 
Israel  in  general).  It  means:  "  Israel  ate  in  this  life,  will  be 
satisfied  in  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  and  shall  have  some  left 
in  the  world  to  come." 

R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  :  "  Whence 
do  we  know  that  a  change  of  clothes  is  a  biblical  prescription  ?  " 
Because  it  is  written  [Lev.  vi.  4] :  "  And  he  shall  take  off  his 
garments,  and  put  on  other  garments,  and  carry  forth  the  ashes 
to  without  the  camp,  unto  a  clean  place."  This  was  commented 
upon  by  the  school  of  R.  Ishmael  to  mean,  that  the  clothes 
worn  while  cooking  for  one's  master  should  not  be  worn  when 
serving  the  master  at  table. 

The  same  teacher  said  again :  A  scholar  (Talmud-Chacham), 
upon  whose  clothes  a  stain  can  be  found,  deserves  to  be  put  to 
death,  for  it  is  written  [Proverbs  viii.  36]:  "  All  those  that  hate 
me  love  death."  Do  not  read,  "  those  that  hate  me  "  (mcsanai), 
but  "  those  that  cause  others  to  hate  me"  (masnii)  (implying 
that  if  a  stain  is  noticed  on  a  scholar's  clothes,  the  whole  law  is 
held  lightly).  Rabhina  said:  "  In  the  Boraitha  was  taught  not 
*  upon  whose  clothes  a  stain  can  be  found,'  but  '  upon  whose 
clothes  ^r^^j^  (Rebhad)  ■''  is  found."     They  do  not  differ,  how- 

*  Rashi  interprets  the  word  Rcbhad  to  mean  "  semen." 


TRACT    SAliliATlI.  237 

ever.  The  former  refers  to  an  over-garment,  while  the  latter  to 
an  uiulcr-f^armcnt. 

R.  Johanan  said:  Who  can  be  called  a  scholar  trustworthy 
enough  to  be  believed  when  claiming  a  lost  article,  without  iden- 
tification, but  simply  by  seeing  the  article  lost  and  claiming  it 
as  his  own  ?  A  scholar  who  is  so  particular  that,  if  he  happen 
to  put  on  his  night-robe  wrong  side  out,  he  will  take  the  trouble 
to  take  it  off  again  and  adjust  it  properly. 

R.  Johanan  said  again : "  Who  is  the  scholar  worthy  of  being 
made  the  president  of  a  congregation  ?"  The  one  who,  when 
asked  concerning  an  ordinance  bearing  on  any  subject,  knows 
exactly  what  to  answer,  even  such  ordinances  as  are  contained 
in  the  Tract  Kalah  (Kalah  is  a  supplement  to  the  Talmud,  which 
is  not  generally  read,  and  treats  of  a  bride). 

He  said  again:  "Who  is  the  scholar  that  is  deserving  of 
having  his  work  performed  by  his  fellow-citizens  ?  The  one  who 
neglects  his  own  affairs  to  attend  to  religious  affairs."  This 
refers,  however,  only  to  one  who  has  lost  his  subsistence  on 
account  of  his  congregational  duties. 

Again,  R.  Johanan  said:  "  Who  can  be  called  a  scholar  (Tal- 
mud-Chacham)  ?  One  who  can  give  the  interpretation  of  any 
ordinance  in  whichever  chapter  (or  tract)  that  may  be  shown 
him."  What  difference  does  that  make?  The  difference  is 
this:  If  a  man  is  familiar  only  with  the  ordinances  of  a  certain 
tract,  he  may  only  be  competent  to  be  the  presiding  ofificer  of 
one  community,  but  if  he  understand  them  all,  he  may  be  made 
the  chief  of  the  house  of  learning  in  a  whole  district. 

"  R.  Ishmacl  says :  '  One  may  arrange  his  clothes,'  "  etc.  The 
rabbis  taught:  It  is  written  [Numb,  xxviii.  10]:  "This  is  the 
burnt-offering  of  the  Sabbath."  From  this  we  learn,  that  we 
may  offer  up  the  tallow  left  over  from  the  Sabbath  on  the  Day 
of  Atonement ;  but  one  might  say,  that  the  fat  left  over  on  the 
Day  of  Atonement  may  be  offered  up  on  the  Sabbath  also; 
therefore  the  passage  says  [ibid,  ibid.]:  "  on  every  Sabbath." 
So  says  R.  Ishmael,  but  R.  Aqiba  says,  "  '  This  is  the  burnt- 
offering  of  the  Sabbath  on  every  Sabbath,'  implies,  that  the  fat 
left  over  from  the  Sabbath  may  be  sacrificed  on  a  biblical  feast- 
day;  but  one  might  say,  that  it  may  be  done  also  on  the  day  of 
Atonement;  therefore  the  passage  says  '  on  every  Sabbath.'  " 

The  point  of  difference  between  R.  Ishmacl  and  R.  Aqiba  is 
as  follows:  R.  Ishmael  contends  that  vow-offerings  and  volun- 
tary offerings  may  be  brought  on  feast-days,  and  therefore  the 

VOL.  II. — s 


238  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

term  "  every  Sabbath  "  cannot  refer  to  feast-days,  but  does  refer 
to  the  Day  of  Atonement,  whereas  R.  Aqiba  contends  that  such 
offerings  must  not  be  brought  on  feast-days,  and  hence  "  every 
Sabbath  "  impHes  that  the  fat  left  over  from  the  Sabbath  may 
be  ofTered  up  on  a  feast-day. 

R.  Zera  or  R.  Aba  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Huna:  "  1/  the 
Day  of  Atonement  fall  on  a  Sabbath,  herbs  for  cooking  must 
not  be  selected  on  that  day."  Said  R.  Mana:  This  we  have 
learned  in  a  Boraitha  as  follows :  "  Whence  do  we  know  that  if  the 
Day  of  Atonement  fall  on  a  Sabbath  herbs  must  not  be  selected  ? 
Because  it  is  written  [Exod.  xvi.  23] :  '  A  rest,  a  holy  rest  is 
unto  the  Lord  to-morrow.'  "  Why  is  the  word  "  rest  "  repeated  ? 
Shall  we  assume,  that  no  other  labor  must  be  performed  ?  This 
is  ordained  (in  Chapter  xx.  10):  "  Thou  shalt  not  do  any  work." 
It  must  therefore  refer  to  such  work  as  is  not  really  labor,  as 
"  selecting  herbs  "  (and  the  passage  must  refer  to  a  Sabbath  on 
which  the  Day  of  Atonement  happens  to  fall,  because  on  ordi- 
nary Sabbaths  no  additional  prescription  is  necessary;  but  it 
being  the  Day  of  Atonement,  on  which,  were  it  not  also  Sab- 
bath, such  work  would  be  permissible,  on  account  of  alleviating 
the  sufferings  caused  by  fasting,  we  might  assume  that  it  would 
be  allowed  also  on  a  Day  of  Atonement,  which  occurs  on  a  Sab- 
bath ;  therefore  the  passage  refers  to  a  Sabbath  upon  which  the 
Day  of  Atonement  happens  to  fall).  R.  Hyya  bar  Aba,  how- 
ever, in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  said :  Selecting  herbs  on  a  Sab- 
bath concurrent  with  the  Day  of  Atonement  is  permissible,  and 
the  repetition  of  the  word  "  rest  "  is  on  account  of  the  prohi- 
bition of  actual  labor,  and  as  for  there  being  another  ordinance 
to  that  effect,  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  signifying  that  the  trans- 
gressor of  this  commandment  will  be  punished  for  the  violation 
of  both  the  positive  and  the  negative  commandments. 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha  in  support  of  R.  Johanan : 
Selecting  herbs  on  a  Day  of  Atonement  concurrent  with  a  Sab- 
bath is  permissible.  Nuts  may  be  cracked  and  pomegranates 
cleaned  after  the  afternoon  prayer,  for  the  purpose  of  alleviat- 
ing the  suffering  of  the  fasting.  In  the  house  of  R.  Jehudah, 
cabbage  was  prepared,  and  in  Rabba's  house,  pumpkins  were 
cleaned.  Later  on  Rabba  noticed  that  this  was  being  done  even 
before  the  afternoon  prayer;  so  he  told  them  that  a  message  was 
received  from  R,  Johanan  of  Palestine  that  this  was  pro- 
hibited. 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

REGULATIONS   CONCERNING    ARTICLES    WHICH    MAY    BE    SAVED    FROM 
A    CONFLAGRATION    ON    SABBATH. 

MISHNA:  All  sacred  scriptures  may  be  saved  from  a  con- 
flagration (on  the  Sabbath);  be  such  scriptures  allowed  or  not 
allowed  to  be  read  on  Sabbath.  The  Scriptures  written  in  an)' 
language  whatsoever  must  be  considered  sacred,  and  brought  to 
a  safe  place,  even  on  a  week-day.  Why  are  some  (sacred  scrip- 
tures) not  allowed  to  be  read  (on  Sabbath)  ?  In  order  that  one 
might  not  miss  the  sermons  at  the  school-house.  One  may  save 
the  case  of  the  book  with  the  book,  the  case  of  the  Tephillin  with 
the  Tephillin,  even  if  money  is  contained  therein.  Where  must 
such  things  be  taken  (for  safety)  ?  In  a  closed  space  surrounded 
by  walks.  Ben  Bathyra  says:  "  Even  in  a  space  that  has  one 
side  open." 

GEMARA:  It  was  taught:  If  the  Scriptures  were  written 
in  Aramaic  (Targum),  or  in  any  other  language,  they  need  not 
be  saved  from  a  conflagration.  So  says  R.  Huna.  But  R. 
Hisda  says:  "  They  must  be  saved."  According  to  the  Tana 
who  holds,  that  all  of  the  scriptures  may  be  read  on  Sabbath, 
there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  between  R.  Huna  and  R.  Hisda, 
for  the  Scriptures  must  be  saved.  But,  according  to  the  Tana 
who  holds,  that  some  scriptures  may  and  others  may  not  be 
read  on  the  Sabbath,  R.  Huna  says,  that  the  latter  need  not  be 
saved,  while  R.  Hisda  says  they  must,  in  order  not  to  disgrace 
the  Scriptures.  An  objection  was  made:  "Our  Mishna  says, 
that  all  scriptures,  whether  allowed  to  be  read  on  the  Sabbath 
or  not,  or  even  if  written  in  whatever  language,  must  be  saved. 
We  must  assume,  that  the  readable  part  of  the  Scriptures  is  the 
Prophets  and  the  non-readable  part  is  the  Hagiographa,  and  if 
written  in  other  languages,  which  are  naturally  non-readable, 
they  must  nevertheless  be  saved.  How,  then,  can  R.  Huna  say, 
that  the  non-readable  need  not  be  saved?"  R.  Huna  might 
say:  How  can  this  explanation  of  the  Mishna  correspond  with 
the  further  ordinance  that  they  "  should  be  brought  to  a  safe 

239 


240  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

place  "  ?  If  it  says  that  they  must  be  saved  from  the  conflagra- 
tion, it  is  self-evident  that  they  must  be  brought  to  a  safe  place  ? 
What  is  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  Mishna  ?  R.  Huna 
interprets  it  according  to  his  understanding  thus:  "  The  read- 
able part  of  the  Scriptures  is  the  Prophets,  the  non-readable 
part  is  the  Hagiographa,  providing  they  are  written  in  the  holy 
language  (Hebrew),  but  if  written  in  other  languages  they  need 
7iot  be  saved ;  but  although  they  need  not  be  saved  on  the  Sab- 
bath, if  they  lie  in  an  unfit  place  even  on  week-days,  they  must 
be  brought  into  a  safe  place."  R.  Hisda  interprets  the  Mishna 
according  to  his  understanding  thus:  "  The  readable  part  is  the 
Prophets,  the  non-readable  part  is  the  Hagiographa,  and  al- 
though written  in  other  languages  they  must  also  be  saved,  and 
the  term  '  should  be  brought  to  a  safe  place  '  refers  even  to  torn 
pieces  of  such  Scriptures  although  written  in  other  languages." 

Another  objection  was  made:  We  have  learned  in  a  Bora- 
itha:  "  If  they  (the  Scriptures)  are  written  in  Aramaic  or  any 
other  language,  they  must  be  saved  from  a  conflagration  ?  Is 
this  not  contradictory  to  R.  Huna's  opinion  ?  Nay;  R.  Huna 
may  say  that  the  Tana  of  the  Boraitha  holds  the  Scriptures  writ- 
ten in  other  languages  to  be  readable.  Come  and  hear:  Scrip- 
tures written  in  Coptic,  Median,  old  Hebrew,  Elamite  or  Greek, 
although  not  permitted  to  be  read,  must  be  saved  from  a  con- 
flagration." This  is  surely  a  contradiction  to  R.  Huna?  R. 
Huna  might  say:  There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  the 
different  Tanaim,  as  we  have  learned  in  the  following  Tosephta: 
If  the  Scriptures  are  written  in  Aramaic  or  in  any  other  lan- 
guage, they  must  be  saved  from  a  conflagration,  but  R.  Jose 
says,  that  they  must  not.  Said  R.  Jose:  It  happened  that  Aba 
'Halafta  went  to  R.  Gamaliel  the  Great  in  Tiberias,  who  sat  at 
the  table  of  Johanan  the  Nazuph  (also  called  Ben  Nazuph),  and 
held  in  his  hand  the  book  of  Job  in  Aramaic,  which  he  was  read- 
ing. Said  Aba  'Halafta  to  R.  Gamaliel:  "  I  remember  having 
at  one  time  come  to  thy  grandfather  R.  Gamaliel,  who  stood  on 
the  steps  of  the  corridor  of  the  Temple  when  a  Book  of  Job  in 
Aramaic  was  brought  to  him.  He  told  the  mason  to  take  the 
book  and  immure  it  underneath  the  stairway."  Whereupon  the 
later  R.  Gamaliel  also  ordered  the  book  he  was  reading  to  be 
immured. 

The  rabbis  taught :  The  benedictions,  which  are  written  in 
Hebrew,  or  amulets  although  containing  letters  of  the  Holy 
Name  and  many  passages  of  the  Scriptures,  must  not  be  saved 


TRACT   SABBATH.  241 

from  a  conflagration,  but  may  be  burned  up  together  with  such 
letters  and  passages.  From  this  it  was  said,  that  one  who  writes 
benedictions  commits  an  act  equal  to  burning  up  the  Scriptures, 
as  it  happened  in  Zidon  :  One  wrote  benedictions,  and  it  was 
told  to  R.  Ishmael.  R.  Ishmael  set  forth  to  investigate  the 
matter.  As  soon  as  the  man  saw  R.  Ishmael  approach,  he 
threw  the  writings  into  a  bowl  of  water.  Said  R.  Ishmael  to 
him  the  following  words:  "The  punishment  thou  wilt  receive 
for  this  latter  deed  will  be  greater  than  that  for  writing  the 
benedictions." 

The  Exilarch  asked  of  Rabba  bar  R.  Huna:  If  the  Scriptures 
were  written  with  paint  or  with  dyes  and  in  the  holy  language, 
may  they  be  saved  from  a  conflagration  or  not  ?  I  ask  thee, 
taking  in  consideration  the  differences  of  opinion  existing  between 
the  different  Tanaim,  for  those  who  hold  that  Scriptures  written 
in  Aramaic  or  any  other  language  must  not  be  saved,  what  is 
their  opinion  regarding  such  as  are  written  in  the  holy  language 
and  not  with  ink  ?  Whereas  those  who  hold  that  the  Scriptures 
in  any  language  must  be  saved,  do  they  not  refer  to  such  as  are 
written  in  ink  only,  but  those  written  with  paint  or  dye,  even  if 
written  in  Hebrew,  should  also  not  be  saved  ?  Answered  Rabba 
bar  R.  Huna:  "  No,  they  must  not  be  saved."  Rejoined  the 
Exilarch  :  "  R.  Hamnuna  taught,  in  a  Boraitha,  thatxthey  may  ?  " 
Answered  Rabba:  "If  such  was  taught  in  a  Boraitha,  it  must 
be  so !  " 

The  rabbis  taught :  Before  the  passage  [Numb.  x.  35] :  "  And 
it  came  to  pass  when  the  ark  set  forward,  that  Moses  said, 
etc.,"  and  at  the  close  of  the  next  verse,  the  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He,  made  signs  (the  inverted  letter  Nun,  which  must  be 
inserted  in  the  Scroll)  in  order  to  signify  that  this  is  not  the 
proper  place  for  the  two  passages;  but  Rabbi  says,  that  this  is 
out  of  the  question,  and  that  the  two  verses  form  a  valuable 
book  in  themselves.  We  have  heard  from  R.  Samuel  ben  Na'h- 
mcni  in  the  name  of  R.  Jonathan,  that  we  have  not  a  Penta- 
teuch but  a  Septateuch  *  {i.e.,  we  have  not  five  books  of  Moses, 
but  seven).  Would  this  imply  that  R.  Samuel  holds  with 
R.ibbi  and  declares  that  there  are  seven  (because  the  two  verses, 
which  form  a  book  in  themselves,  divide  Numbers  into  two 
hooks)?  Who  is  the  Tana,  however,  that  differs  with  Rabbi  ? 
He  is  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel,  for  we  have  learned  in  a  Bora- 

*  In  the  Hebrew  introduction  to  Tract  Rosh  Ilnshana  this  entire  argument  is 
explained,  and  we  do  not  deem  it  advisable  to  translate  it  at  present. 


242  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

itha :  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  says,  that  these  two  passages  will 
in  the  future  be  removed  and  put  in  their  proper  place.  Why 
were  they  put  here,  then  ?  In  order  to  make  a  separation 
between  the  two  scourges  that  befell  the  Israelites.  Which 
was  the  second  scourge  ?  The  one  that  follows  immediately 
afterwards  [Numb.  xi.  i] :  "And  it  came  to  pass,  that,  as  the 
people  complained  in  a  manner  displeasing  to  the  Lord,"  etc., 
etc.  And  which  was  the  first?  The  first  was  as  it  is  written  [ibid. 
X.  33]:  "  And  they  set  forward  from  the  mount  of  the  Lord," 
which,  according  to  R.  Hama  b.  Hanina,  means  "and  they 
departed  from  the  ways  of  the  Lord. ' '  Which  is  the  proper  place 
for  the  two  passages  ?  Said  R.  Ashi :  In  Numbers  ii.  (where  it 
is  decreed  how  every  man  should  walk  in  the  wilderness,  and  the 
end  of  the  chapter  stating  that  every  man  did  as  he  was  com- 
manded, should  be  followed  by  those  two  verses). 

The  schoolmen  asked :  May  the  blank  pieces  of  the  Scroll  of 
Laws  which  had  become  detached  from  the  Scroll  be  saved 
from  a  conflagration  on  Sabbath  or  not  ?  Come  and  hear:  The 
Gilyonim  (blank  pieces  of  the  Scroll)  and  the  Sadducean  books 
need  not  be  saved  from  the  conflagration.  They,  together  with 
the  holy  names  contained  in  them.  Does  not  the  word  Gil- 
yonim have  reference  to  the  blank  pieces  of  the  Scroll  ?  Nay; 
the  blank  pages  of  the  Sadducean  books.  How  can  it  mean  the 
blank  pages  of  the  Sadducean  books.  Why,  it  is  not  even  allowed 
to  save  the  Sadducean  books  themselves  ?  Perhaps  the  Boraitha 
means,  that  the  Sadducean  books  are  considered  as  blank  pages, 
and  hence  must  not  be  saved. 

The  text  of  the  Boraitha  says  further:  The  Gilyonim  and 
the  Sadducean  books  must  not  be  saved  from  a  conflagration ; 
R.  Jose  says,  that  on  week-days  the  Holy  Name  must  be  torn 
out  wherever  it  appears  and  preserved,  and  the  remainder  must 
be  burned;  but  R.  Tarphon  says:  May  I  bury  my  children,  if 
I  would  not  burn  such  books  together  with  the  Holy  Name, 
whenever  they  reached  my  hands;  for  when  a  man  is  pursued 
by  murderers  or  by  a  snake,  it  were  better  for  him  to  seek  refuge 
in  the  temple  of  an  idol  than  to  enter  the  houses  of  such 
people;  for  the  idolaters  serve  their  idols  because  they  know  not 
God,  but  the  others  know  God  and  deny  him;  they  (the  latter) 
are  referred  to  by  the  verse  [Isaiah  Ivii.  8] :  "  And  behind  the 
doors  and  the  doorposts  hast  thou  placed  thy  remembrance" 
(implying  that  they  remember  the  Lord  very  well,  but  never- 
theless place  their  memory  behind  the  doors  and  doorposts). 


TRACT   SABBATH.  243 

Said  R.  Ishmael :  In  the  Scriptures  it  is  even  allowed  to 
erase  with  bitter  water  the  Holy  Name  of  God,  which  was  writ- 
ten in  a  holy  cause  in  order  to  bring  about  peace  between  man 
and  wife,  a  fortiori  it  should  be  allowed  in  the  case  of  those 
people  who  cause  discord  and  enmity  between  Israel  and  the 
Heavenly  Father.  To  them  David  had  reference  [in  Psalms 
cxxxix.  21,  22]:  "  Behold  those  that  hate  thee,  I  ever  hate,  O 
Lord !  and  for  those  that  rise  up  against  thee  do  I  feel  loathing. 
With  the  utmost  hatred  do  I  hate  them :  enemies  are  they 
become  unto  me."  So,  as  they  must  not  be  saved  from  a  con- 
flagration, they  must  also  not  be  saved  from  the  waters,  or  any- 
thing that  might  destroy  them. 

Joseph  bar  Hanin  asked  of  R.  Abuha:  "  May  the  books  of 
Be  Abhidon  be  saved?"  Answered  R.  Abuha:  Yea,  nay,  I 
really  cannot  tell.  Rabh  never  went  to  the  Be  Abhidon,  and  all 
the  more  not  to  the  Be  Nitzrephe.*  Samuel,  however,  never 
went  to  the  Be  Nitzrephe,  but  did  go  to  the  Be  Abhidon.  Mar 
bar  Joseph  said:  "  I  am  of  their  society  and  do  not  fear  them." 
Still  it  happened  at  one  time  that  he  was  in  danger  on  their 
account. 

Ema  Shalom,  the  wife  of  R.  Eliezer,  who  was  also  a  sister  of 
R.  Gamaliel  the  Second,  encountered  a  philosopher  in  her  neigh- 
borhood who  was  a  judge,  and  had  the  reputation  of  being  inac- 
cessible to  bribery.  R.  Gamaliel  and  his  sister  wished  to  ridicule 
him  and  prove  that  he  was  accessible  to  briber}'.  Ema  Shalom 
brought  him  a  golden  candle.  He  asked  her  what  she  wanted,  so 
she  answered  :  "  My  father  is  dead,  and  I  wish  to  inherit  some  of 
his  possessions."  The  judge  said:  "  Go,  I  will  order  that  you 
be  given  your  share."  Said  she:  "  Thou  canst  not  order  it  so, 
because  our  law  decrees,  that  wherever  there  is  a  son  a  daughter 
cannot  inherit."  Answered  the  judge:  "Since  you  Israelites 
are  in  exile,  your  law  given  you  by  Moses  has  been  revoked,  and 
a  new  law  was  given  you  by  which  daughters  may  inherit 
equally  with  sons."  On  the  morrow  came  R.  Gamaliel  and 
brought  him  a  Libyan  ass,  and  told  him  that  he  did  not  wish  to 
let  his  sister  inherit.  Said  the  judge:  "  After  thy  sister  left  I 
consulted  the  law  again,  and  found  that  the  new  law  said:  '  I 
did  not  come  to  abolish  the  Mosaic  law,  neither  to  increase  nor 


•  We  render  these  names  without  translations,  as  we  also  do  in  the  case  of  Gilyo- 
nim,  because  of  the  incessant  discussions  concerning  them  among  Hebrew  theo- 
logians, and  wc  do  not  desire  to  decide  the  definite  meaning. 


244  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

to  diminish  it.'  Hence  it  must  remain  as  in  the  old  law,  that 
where  a  son  is  left  a  sister  must  not  inherit."  Said  Ema 
Shalom  to  the  judge:  "  May  God  make  thy  light  as  bright  as  a 
candle."  Said  R.  Gamaliel  to  her  (in  the  presence  of  the 
judge):  "  An  ass  came  along  and  extinguished  thy  candle." 

' '  IV/ty  are  some  {sacred  Scriptures^  not  alloived  to  be  read  {on 
the  Sabbath)?"  etc.  Said  Rabh :  "It  is  not  allowed  to  read 
such  Scriptures  only  during  the  time  of  the  sermons  at  the 
school-house,  but  at  any  other  they  maybe  read."  Samuel, 
however,  said,  that  even  at  any  other  time  they  must  not  be 
read,  because  he  holds  with  R.  Nehemiah  as  we  have  learned 
in  the  following  Boraitha:  "Although  it  was  said  that  the 
Hagiographa  should  not  be  read,  still  they  may  be  discussed 
and  lectured  upon,  and  when  a  quotation  must  be  made,  the 
book  maybe  referred  to  and  the  quotation  read."  Said  R. 
Nehemiah:  "  Why  was  it  prohibited  to  read  the  Hagiographa 
on  the  Sabbath  ?  In  order  that  it  might  be  said :  As  it  is  for- 
bidden to  read  the  Hagiographa,  it  is  all  the  more  so  forbidden 
to  read  ordinary  papers." 

"In  a  closed  space  surrounded  by  walls."  What  is  to  be 
understood  by  the  term  "closed  space"?  Said  R.  Hisda: 
"  This  refers  to  a  lane  surrounded  on  three  sides  by  walls  and 
having  on  the  fourth  side  two  beams.  If  the  lane  have  three  walls 
and  two  beams  it  is  a  closed  space,  if  it  have  only  one  beam  on 
the  fourth  side  it  is  an  open  place,  and  the  Tana  of  the  Mishna  as 
well  as  Ben  Bathyra  hold  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  R. 
Eliezer,  who  decided  to  that  effect  elsewhere."  Said  Rabba  to 
R.  Hisda:  "  Dost  thou  call  a  space  surrounded  by  three  walls  and 
one  beam  an  open  place  ?  If  this  be  so,  according  to  the  sages, 
why  cannot  victuals  and  beverages  also  be  brought  there,  not 
alone  Scriptures  ?  In  7ny  opinion,  two  walls  and  two  beams, 
one  on  each  side,  form  a  closed  space,  and  two  walls  with  only 
one  beam  constitute  an  open  space.  And  the  two  Tanaim  of 
the  Mishna  are  not  in  accord  with  R.  Eliezer,  but  with  R.  Jehu- 
dah,  who  opposes  him  (in  Tract  Erubin)." 

Said  Abayi  to  Rabba:  "  And  why  should  not,  according  to 
thy  explanation,  victuals  and  beverages  be  brought  there  (for 
safety)  in  conformity  with  the  opinion  of  the  sages  ?"  Said  R. 
Ashi,  however,  "  The  two  Tanaim  of  the  Mishna  are  of  the 
opinion  of  R.  Eliezer,  and  a  closed  place  is  formed  by  three  walls 
and  one  beam,  while  an  open  place  is  made  by  three  walls  with- 
out  any  beam  at   all;   iind   even   according  to   R.  Eliezer,  who 


TRACT   SARRATH.  245 

requires  two  beams,  it  is  only  for  the  bringing  thither  of  victuals; 
but  for  the  safe  keeping  of  the  Scriptures,  R.  Eliezer  holds  even 
one  beam  to  be  sufficient." 

MISHNA:  One  may  save  enough  victuals  to  last  for  three 
meals  (on  the  Sabbath  in  the  event  of  a  conflagration).  Such  food 
as  is  fit  for  human  beings  may  be  saved  for  the  use  of  human 
beings,  and  such  as  is  fit  for  cattle  may  be  saved  for  cattle. 
How  so  ?  If  a  conflagration  happen  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath,  one 
may  save  enough  victuals  for  three  meals.  If  it  occur  in  the 
forenoon  of  Sabbath,  one  may  save  enough  for  two  meals,  and 
if  it  occur  in  the  afternoon  of  Sabbath  one  may  only  save 
enough  for  one  meal.  R.  Jose,  however,  says:  "  One  may  at  all 
times  save  enough  for  three  meals." 

GEMARA:  Let  us  see!  Why  should  it  only  be  allowed  to 
save  three  meals,  or  two,  or  one  ?  (It  says,  further  on,  that  the 
victuals  for  the  meals  are  to  be  brought  into  such  a  place  as  is 
covered  by  an  Erub.  In  such  a  place  things  maybe  carried,  and 
the  things  themselves  may  also  be  handled,  then  why  should  one 
not  be  allowed  to  save  more  than  enough  for  three  meals  ?)  Said 
Rabha:  Because  a  man  is  anxious  for  his  possessions,  he  might, 
if  allowed  to  save  as  much  as  possible,  forget  about  the  Sabbath 
and  extinguish  the  fire  altogether.  Said  Abayi  to  him:  "  We 
have  learned  previously,  that  a  man  upon  whose  roof  a  barrel 
filled  with  victuals  becomes  broken,  may  bring  another  vessel  and 
put  it  underneath  the  barrel  in  order  that  the  contents  of  the 
barrel  fall  into  the  vessel,  but  may  not  bring  another  barrel  and 
transfer  the  contents  of  the  broken  one  into  the  new,  nor  may 
he  place  a  new  barrel  alongside  of  the  other  and  remove  the 
contents  of  the  broken  one  into  the  new  one  by  keeling  over 
the  former  and  letting  its  contents  drop  into  the  latter.  Why 
should  he  not  be  allowed  to  do  this  ?  (He  is  on  private  ground, 
and  the  barrel  with  its  contents  may  be  handled  ?)  If  it  is  pro- 
hibited as  a  precautionary  measure  in  the  manner  of  the  previ- 
ous case,  where  does  the  precaution  arise  ?"  This  latter  case  is 
also  a  precautionary  measure ;  for  were  he  allowed  to  remove  the 
contents  from  one  barrel  into  another,  there  is  fear  of  his  carry- 
ing it  through  public  ground.  The  text  of  the  Boraitha,  how- 
ever, teaches  further,  that  if  the  man  had  guests  in  his  house, 
he  may  remove  the  contents  of  the  broken  barrel  into  a  new 
one,  etc.  But  he  may  not  first  remove  the  contents  and  then 
call  guests,  but  first  call  guests  and  then  remove  the  things;  nor 
may  he  pretend  (to  call  guests),  but  must  actually  desire  their 


246  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

company.     In  the  name  of  R.  Jose  bar  R.  Jehudah  it  was  said, 
that  even  calling  guests  as  a  pretext  is  also  allowed. 

The  rabbis  taught :  If  one  had  saved  (from  the  fire)  fine 
bread,  he  must  not  return  and  save  coarse  bread,  but  if  he  first 
saved  the  coarse  he  may  return  and  save  the  fine.  One  may 
also  save  enough  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  in  the  event  of  a 
fire  (when  that  day  is  succeeded  by  Sabbath)  to  last  him  through 
the  Sabbath  also,  but  on  a  Sabbath  it  is  not  permitted  to  save 
enough  for  the  Day  of  Atonement  (if  the  Sabbath  falls  on  the 
day  before),  and  all  the  more  so  is  it  not  allowed  if  the  Sabbath 
precedes  a  feast-day;  nor  is  it  allowed  to  save  on  one  Sabbath 
for  the  following  Sabbath. 

The  rabbis  taught:  If  one  forgets  bread  in  an  oven,  and  in 
the  meantime  the  Sabbath  sets  in,  it  is  allowed  to  save  enough 
bread  to  last  for  three  meals ;  and  one  may  say  to  bystanders, 
"  Come  and  take  out  as  much  as  ye  need  "  ;  and  when  taking  out 
the  bread  it  should  not  be  done  with  a  baker's  shovel,  but  with 
some  other  utensil.  R.  Hisda  said :  A  man  should  see  that  every- 
thing should  be  prepared  on  Friday  for  the  Sabbath  as  early  as 
possible,  as  it  is  written  [Exodus  xvi.  5] :  "  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  on  the  sixth  day,  when  they  prepare  what  they  shall  have 
brought  in,"  etc.,  and  this  means,  that  as  soon  as  the  sixth  day 
sets  in,  preparations  for  the  Sabbath  should  be  begun. 

R.  Aba  said:  "A  man  must  pronounce  the  benediction  over 
two  loaves  on  the  Sabbath,"  for  it  is  written  [ibid.  xvi.  5]: 
"  Double  bread."  Said  R,  Ashi :  "  I  noticed  the  manner  in 
which  R.  Kahana  did  this :  He  would  hold  two  loaves,  but  would 
cut  only  one,  because  it  is  written  [ibid.  xvi.  18]:  '  Every  man 
according  to  his  eating  had  he  gathered.'  "  R.  Zera  used  to  cut 
off  the  loaf  sufficient  to  last  him  for  the  entire  meal.  Asked 
Rabhina  of  R.  Ashi:  "  Does  this  not  seem  gluttonous,  to  hold 
so  large  a  piece  in  one's  hand  ?  "  Answered  R.  Ashi :  "  Because 
on  week-days  such  was  not  his  wont,  it  does  not  appear  glutton- 
ous on  Sabbath,  and  R.  Zera  did  this  only  in  honor  of  the  day." 
R.  Ami  and  R.  Assi,  if  happening  to  have  the  same  bread  used 
in  making  an  Erub,  for  use  on  Sabbath,  would  pronounce  the 
benediction  over  the  bread,  for  they  said  that  because  one  relig- 
ious duty  had  been  fulfilled  with  that  bread,  it  should  be  used 
to  fulfil  another  religious  duty." 

How  so :  If  a  conflagratioti, ' '  etc.  The  rabbis  taught :  How 
many  meals  should  a  man  eat  on  the  Sabbath  ?  Three.  R. 
'Hidka  said    four.     Said   R.  Johanan  :  Both  the  rabbis  and  R. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  J47 

'Hidka  adduced  their  opinions  from  the  same  passage,  as  fol- 
lows [Exodus  xvi.  25]:  "  And  Moses  said,  Eat  it  to-day;  for  a 
Sabbath  is  this  day  unto  the  Lord:  to-day  ye  will  not  find  it  in 
the  field."  R.  'Hidka  holds  that,  day  being  mentioned  three 
times,  three  meals  should  be  eaten  during  the  day  and  one  at 
night,  and  the  rabbis  hold  that  the  day  includes  the  night  and 
only  three  meals  are  required.  Our  Mishna,  however,  which 
decrees  that  only  enough  for  three  meals  should  be  saved,  does 
therefore  not  agree  with  R.  'Hidka.  According  to  whose  opin- 
ion, however,  will  the  following  Mishna  be  ?  (Tract  Peah) :  "  If 
a  poor  man  have  sufficient  for  two  meals,  he  must  not  apply  for 
another  at  the  public  kitchen  (where  food  is  distributed),  but  he 
may  apply  to  the  general  charity  fund.  If  he  have,  however, 
sufficient  for  fourteen  meals  (for  the  week)  he  must  not  even 
apply  to  the  general  charity  fund!  "  If  the  Mishna  were  of  the 
opinion  of  R.  'Hidka,  he  should  have  had  sufficient  for  sixteen 
meals,  so  as  to  afford  him  four  meals  on  the  Sabbath,  and, 
according  to  the  rabbis,  for  fifteen  meals  in  order  to  have  three 
meals  on  the  Sabbath  ?  It  is  therefore  neither  in  accord  with 
R.  'Hidka  nor  with  the  rabbis.  Nay;  it  is  in  accord  with  the 
rabbis,  and  the  poor  man  should  eat  his  Sabbath-night  meal  on 
the  Sabbath  day,  so  with  his  Friday-night  meal  it  will  make 
three  meals  on  the  Sabbath.  It  may  also  be  said  that  the 
Mishna  holds  with  R.  'Hidka,  and  that  the  poor  man  should 
leave  his  Friday  meal  for  the  Sabbath,  Shall  we  make  the  poor 
man  then  fast  on  Friday  ?  It  would  therefore  be  better  to 
hold  the  Mishna's  opinion  to  be  in  accord  with  R.  Aqiba,  who 
says,  that  the  poor  man  should  make  Sabbath  equal  to  a  week- 
day in  order  not  to  be  forced  to  rely  upon  charity.  Thus  four- 
teen meals  are  sufficient,  and  he  may  eat  only  two  on  Sabbath. 
But  according  to  whose  opinion  is  the  Mishna  (Tract  Peah): 
"  If  a  wandering  mendicant  come  to  a  town,  he  must  be  given  a 
loaf  which  can  be  bought  for  a  Pundian  (one  forty-eighth  of  a 
Sela)  when  the  price  of  flour  is  one  Sela  for  four  Saahs  (and  the 
sages  calculated  that  such  a  loaf  is  sufficient  for  two  meals).  If 
he  remain  over  night  he  must  be  given  lodging,  and  if  he  remain  i 
over  Sabbath  he  must  be  given  three  meals  for  Sabbath."  Shall 
we  assume,  that  this  Mishna  holds  with  the  rabbis  and  not  with 
R.  'Hidka?  It  might  also  be  in  accord  with  R.  'Hidka  if  the 
mendicant  happen  to  have  one  meal  with  him,  he  is  told  to 
eat  the  one  he  has  and  is  given  three  more.  Should  the  mendi- 
cant then  depart  empty-handed  ?     Nay;  he  is  also  given  a  meal 


248  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

to  take  along  on  the  way.  What  must  he  be  given  for  lodging  ? 
Said  R.  Papa:  Enough  to  hire  a  bed  and  a  pillow. 

The  rabbis  taught :  The  dishes  used  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath 
may  be  cleansed  for  the  Sabbath-morning  meal.  The  dishes 
used  in  the  morning  may  be  cleansed  for  the  mid-day  meal,  and 
those  of  the  mid-day  meal  for  the  afternoon ;  but  those  of  the 
afternoon  must  not  be  cleansed  until  the  Sabbath  is  over.  All 
this  is  said  concerning  dishes;  but  glasses,  cups,  and  all  drinking 
utensils  may  be  cleansed  at  any  time,  because  there  are  no  fixed 
times  for  drinking. 

R.  Simeon  ben  Pazi  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehoshua  ben  Levi, 
quoting  Bar  Qapara,  said :  One  who  keeps  the  commandment  to 
eat  three  times  on  the  Sabbath  will  be  rid  of  three  punishments, 
viz.:  "The  tribulations  (at  the  time)  of  Messiah;  the  punish- 
ment of  Gehenna,  and  the  war  of  Gog  and  Magog."  From  the 
tribulations  of  Messiah,  because  the  Sabbath  is  always  men- 
tioned as  the  day,  and  it  is  written  [Malachi  iii.  23] :  "  Behold,  I 
send  unto  you  Elijah  the  prophet  before  the  coming  of  the  day  of 
the  Lord,  the  great  and  the  dreadful."  From  the  punishment 
of  Gehenna,  because  it  is  written  [Zephaniah  i.  15]  :  "A  day  of 
wrath  is  that  day,"  etc.,  meaning  the  Gehenna.  From  the  war 
of  Gog  and  Magog,  because  it  is  written  [Ezekiel  xxxviii.  18]: 
"  On  the  day  of  Gog's  coming." 

R.  Johanan  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Jose:  One  who  makes  the 
Sabbath  pleasant  will  be  rewarded  with  a  boundless  inheritance, 
as  it  is  written  [in  Isaiah  Iviii.  14] :  "  Then  shalt  thou  find  delight 
in  the  Lord ;  and  I  will  cause  thee  to  tread  upon  the  high  places 
of  the  earth,  and  I  will  cause  thee  to  enjoy  the  inheritance  of 
Jacob  thy  father;  for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it." 
Not  the  inheritance  of  Abraham,  concerning  whom  it  is  written 
[Genesis  xiii.  17]:  "  Arise,  walk  through  the  land  in  the  length 
of  it  and  in  the  breadth  of  it,"  etc.,  and  not  as  in  the  case  of 
Isaac,  as  it  is  written  [ibid.  xxvi.  4]:  "  And  I  will  give  unto  thy 
seed  all  these  countries,"  but  as  it  is  written  of  Jacob  [ibid, 
xxviii.  14]:  "And  thy  seed  shall  be  as  the  dust  of  the  earth, 
and  thou  shalt  spread  abroad  to  the  west  and  to  the  east,  and 
to  the  north  and  to  the  south." 

R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak  said :  (The  man  who  makes  the  Sab- 
bath pleasant)  will  also  be  saved  the  pain  of  exile,  because  it  is 
written  [Isaiah  Iviii.  14]  :  "  And  I  will  cause  thee  to  ride  upon  the 
high  places  of  the  earth,"  and  [Deut.  xxxiii.  29]:  "  And  thou 
shalt  tread   upon  their  high  places."     Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the 


TRACT    SABBATH.  249 

name  of  Rabli,  "  He  who  makes  the  Sabbath  pleasant  is  given 
everything  his  heart  desires, ' '  because  it  is  written  [Psalms  xxxvii. 
4]:  "  And  delight  thyself  in  the  Lord,  and  he  will  give  thee  the 
wishes  of  thy  heart."  What  is  meant  by  "  delight  "  ?  From 
the  passage  [Isaiah  Iviii.  13]:  "  If  thou  call  the  Sabbath  a 
delight,"  we  can  adduce  that  the  delight  means  Sabbath. 

Wherewith  should  the  Sabbath  be  made  pleasant  ?  Said  R. 
Jehudah,  the  son  of  R.  Samuel  bar  Shilath,  in  the  name  of 
Rabh :  "With  a  mess  of  beets,  large  fish,  and  garlic-heads." 
But  R.  Ilyya  bar  Ashi  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  "  Even  with 
any  dish  whatever  prepared  especially  for  the  Sabbath."  What 
does  "any  dish  whatever"  mean?  Said  R.  Papa:  "  Even 
small  fish  fried  in  oil." 

R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  "If  the  Israelites 
had  kept  the  first  Sabbath  (after  the  commandments  were  given) 
properly,  no  nation  or  race  on  earth  could  have  harmed  them. 
For  it  is  written  [Exodus  xvi.  27] :  '  And  it  came  to  pass  on 
the  seventh  day  that  there  went  out  some  of  the  people  to 
gather;  but  they  found  nothing.'  And  not  long  afterwards 
Amalek  attacked  the  Israelites." 

R.  Johanan  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Simeon  ben  Jochai:  "  If 
the  Israelites  were  to  keep  two  Sabbaths  in  succession  as  they 
should,  they  would  immediately  be  released  from  exile,  for  it  is 
written  [Isaiah  Ivi.  6] :  '  Also  the  sons  of  the  stranger,  that 
join  themselves  unto  the  Lord,  to  serve  him,  and  to  love  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  to  be  unto  him  as  servants,  every  one  that 
keepeth  the  Sabbath  by  not  violating  it,  and  those  who  take 
hold  of  my  covenant,'  and  immediately  afterwards  it  is  written 
[ibid.  ibid.  7] :  '  Even  these  will  I  bring  to  my  holy  mountain.'  " 

R.  Jose  said:  "  May  my  share  in  the  world  to  come  be  with 
those  who  eat  three  meals  on  the  Sabbath."  Again  he  said: 
"  May  my  share  in  the  world  to  come  be  with  those  who  recite 
Hallel*  everyday."  This  is  not  so.  The  Master  says,  that 
he  who  recites  Hallel  every  day  is  a  blasphemer.  Nay;  R. 
Jose  does  not  mean  Hallel,  but  Hallelujah. 

R.  Jose  said  again :  "  May  my  share  in  the  world  to  come  be 
with  those  who  perform  their  morning  devotion  as  soon  as  the 
sun  begins  to  rise."  Again  said  he:  "  May  my  share  be  with 
those  who  die  of  abdominal  disease,  for  the  Master  said,  that 
most  of  the  righteous  die  of  bowel  troubles."      He  also  said: 

*  Hallel  is  called  the  section  of  the  Psalms  from  Chapter  cxiii.  to  cxix. 


250   ,  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

"  May  my  share  be  with  those  who  die  when  about  to  fulfil  a 
commandment  ;  also  with  those  who  receive  the  Sabbath  in 
Tiberias  and  see  it  out  in  Zipporias  (Tiberias  was  in  a  valley  and 
Zipporias  on  a  hill);  also  with  those  who  remain  in  the  houses 
of  learning,  and  not  with  those  who  attempt  to  draw  scholars  away 
from  their  studies;  also  with  those  who  solicit  alms  but  not  with 
those  who  dispense  alms ;  also  with  those  who  are  suspected  but 
are  not  guilty."  Said  R.  Papa:  "  I  have  been  suspected  but 
was  not  guilty."  Said  R.  Jose:  "  I  have  gone  in  unto  my  wife 
five  times  and  have  planted  five  cedars  in  Israel."  Who  are 
they  ?  R.  Ishmael,  R.  Eliezer,  R.  'Halafta,  R.  Aftiles,  and 
R.  Mena'hem,  all  sons  of  R.  Jose.  But  he  also  had  a  son  called 
Vradimos  ?  Nay;  Vradimos  is  the  same  as  R.  Mena'hem,  and 
the  reason  he  was  called  Vradimos  was  because  his  face  was  as 
beautiful  as  a  rose  (Vrad  is  Aramaic  for  rose). 

Said  R.  Jose  again :  "  In  all  my  days  the  ceiling  of  my  house 
never  saw  the  seam  of  my  undershirt."  Again  said  he:  "I 
never  acted  contrary  to  the  advice  of  my  colleagues.  I  know 
Avell  that  I  am  not  a  descendant  of  priests,  but  when  my  col- 
leagues asked  me  to  pronounce  a  benediction  usually  said  by 
priests,  I  did  so,"  Again  he  said:  "  I  never  said  a  thing  that  I 
afterwards  repented  having  said." 

R.  Na'hman  said:  "  May  it  be  accounted  to  me  (for  my 
reward),  that  I  have  observed  the  three  meals  (in  honor  of  the) 
Sabbath."  R.  Jehudah  said:  "  May  it  be  accounted  to  me, 
that  I  have  given  my  prayers  preliminary  consideration."  *  R. 
Huna,  the  son  of  R.  Jehoshua,  said:  "  May  it  be  accounted  to 
me,  that  I  have  never  walked  four  ells  with  uncovered  head." 
R.  Shesheth  said :  "  May  it  be  accounted  to  me,  that  I  have  ob- 
served the  commandment  of  Tephillin,"  and  R.  Na'hman  said 
again:  "  May  it  be  accounted  to  me,  that  I  have  observed  the 
commandment  of  Tzitzith  (showthreads). " 

Said  R.  Joseph  to  R.  Joseph  the  son  of  Rabha:  "Canst 
thou  tell  me  which  commandment  thy  father  observed  most 
punctually?"  The  answer  was:  "The  commandment  of 
Tzitzith.  For  it  happened  one  day  that  my  father  was  ascending 
the  stairway,  and  a  thread  of  his  Tzitzith  becoming  torn  off,  he 
would  not  leave  his  place  until  a  new  thread  had  been  brought 
to  him  and  the  Tzitzith  were  mended." 

Said  Abayi :  "  May  it  be  accounted  to  me,  that  whenever  I 

*  It  is  stated  elsewhere  (in  Tract  Rosh  Hashana)  that  R.  Jehudah  prayed  only 
once  in  every  thirty  days. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  251 

noticed  a  young  scholar  (of  my  college)  had  finished  a  Tract  of 
the  Talmud,  I  gave  a  feast  to  all  the  sages  of  the  day."  Said 
Rabha:  "  May  it  be  accounted  to  me,  that  whenever  a  young 
scholar  and  another  man  came  before  me  for  judgment,  I  did 
not  put  my  head  on  the  pillow  (rest)  until  I  exhausted  every 
means  to  find  the  scholar's  words  prove  the  justice  of  his  claim." 
Said  Mar,  the  son  of  R.  Ashi :  "  I  am  unfit  to  judge  a  young 
scholar  because  I  love  him  as  well  as  I  do  myself,  and  no  man 
can  sec  himself  unjust." 

R.  Manina  used  to  wrap  himself  in  a  cloak  on  the  eve  of  Sab- 
bath and  say:  "  Come  with  me,  and  let  us  go  toward  Sabbath 
the  queen."  R.  Yanai  used  to  clothe  himself  in  his  holiday 
clothes  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath  and  say:  "  Come,  bride;  come, 
bride." 

Rabba,  the  son  of  R.  Huna,  came  as  a  guest  to  the  house  of 
Rabba  the  son  of  R.  Na'hman,  At  the  table  three  cakes  steeped 
in  the  fat  of  the  ram  (which  were  only  served  on  special  occasions) 
were  placed  before  him.  Said  he  to  his  host :  "  Didst  thou  know 
that  I  would  come  to  visit  thee  ?"  Answered  the  host:  "  Art 
thou  then  better  than  the  Sabbath  ?  (We  prepare  it  usually 
for  every  Sabbath,  as  it  is  written:  'And  thou  shalt  call  the 
Sabbath  a  pleasure.')" 

R.  Aba  used  to  buy  on  the  eve  of  every  Sabbath  thirteen 
Isteris'  (six  and  a  half  Dinars)  worth  of  meat  from  thirteen 
different  butchers,  and  would  hand  them  the  money  immediately 
upon  their  entering  his  door*  and  delivering  the  meat,  saying  to 
them:  "Make  haste,  make  haste  and  deliver  your  orders  to 
others."  R,  Abuha  used  to  sit  on  an  ivor}'  stool  and  make  fire 
in  honor  of  the  Sabbath,  R.  Anan  used  to  don  a  black  apron 
in  order  to  show  that  this  day  (the  eve  of  the  Sabbath)  was  a 
day  of  preparation,  and  that  work  had  to  be  performed  for  the 
Sabbath.  R.  Safra  used  to  singe  a  cow's  head  himself  for  the 
Sabbath,  and  Rabha  would  salt  fish  himself.  R.  Huna  would 
light  candles  himself.  R.  Papa  would  prepare  the  wicks  for  the 
lamps.  R.  Hisda  would  cut  herbs  himself.  Rabba  and  R. 
Joseph  would  chop  wood  for  Sabbath.  R.  Zcra  would  light  the 
kindling  wood.     R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak  would  shoulder  all  bur- 

*  Rashi  interprets  this  p.issage  somewhat  differently,  namely  :  R.  Aba  did  not 
hand  the  money  to  the  butchers  immediately  upon  their  entering  the  door,  but  would 
hand  the  meat  to  his  servants  at  the  door,  sayinp  :  "  Make  haste  and  cook  this  while 
1  j^o  and  bring  more,"  showing  that  he  went  himself  for  the  meat  and  brought  each 
piece  from  each  butcher  home  separately. 


252  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

dens  to  be  carried  in  and  out  of  the  house  himself  on  the  eve  of 
Sabbath,  saying:  "  If  R.  Ami  or  R.  Assi  would  come  to  visit 
me,  would  I  not  do  the  same  for  them  ?"  Others  say  that  R. 
Ami  and  Assi  did  this  on  the  eve  of  every  Sabbath,  saying:  "  If 
it  should  happen  that  R.  Johanan  were  to  visit  us,  would  we  not 
do  the  same  for  him  ? " 

Joseph,  who  honored  the  Sabbath,  had  a  rich  Gentile  for  a 
neighbor.  The  astrologers  told  the  Gentile  that  all  his  goods 
and  possessions  would  eventually  be  eaten  up  by  Joseph,  his 
neighbor.  He  went  and  sold  out  all  his  goods,  and  with  the 
proceeds  bought  a  precious  pearl.  This  pearl  he  had  set  in  his 
turban.  While  crossing  a  lake  one  day,  the  wind  blew  off  his 
turban  and  it  fell  into  the  water.  A  fish  swallowed  it.  Subse- 
quently the  fish  was  caught  by  fishermen  late  on  the  eve  of 
Sabbath.  Said  the  fishermen:  "  Who  will  buy  this  so  late  in 
the  evening  ? ' '  They  were  told  by  some  people  to  go  to  Joseph, 
who  honored  the  Sabbath,  and  that  he  usually  bought  such  things. 
They  carried  it  to  Joseph,  who  bought  it,  and  upon  opening  the 
fish  he  found  the  pearl,  which  he  sold  for  thirteen  *  boxes  of 
golden  Dinars.  A  certain  old  man  met  this  Joseph,  and  said  to 
him:  "  He  who  lends  to  the  Sabbath  is  repaid  by  the  Sabbath 
itself." 

Rabbi  (Jehudah  Hanassi)  asked  of  R.  Ishmael  the  son  of  R. 
Jose:  "  By  what  acts  did  the  rich  men  of  Palestine,  so  wealthy, 
merit  their  wealth  ?  " 

He  answered:  "Because  they  gave  tithes,  as  it  is  written 
[Deut.  xiv.  22] :  '  Thou  shalt  truly  give  tithes.'  "  t  "By  what 
acts  did  the  rich  men  of  Babylon  merit  their  wealth  ?"  asked 
Rabbi  again.  "  Because  they  keep  the  law  honorably,"  was  the 
reply.  "  And  what  about  the  rich  men  of  other  lands  ?  "  "  Be- 
cause they  honor  the  Sabbath,"  as  R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  related: 
"  It  happened  that  I  was  a  guest  in  the  house  of  a  man  in  the 
city  of  Ludkai  and  a  golden  table  was  brought  for  me,  which 
required  sixteen  men  to  carry,  and  sixteen  silver  chains  were  fas- 
tened to  it,  and  bowls,  pitchers,  goblets,  and  glasses  were  hung 
on   those  chains,  and   on  the  table  were  all  kinds  of  food  and 

*  Rashi  explains  that  his  teacher  Levi  taught,  that  the  number  thirteen  was 
usually  used  by  the  sages  for  a  general  sum  and  must  not  be  taken  literally  as  the 
above  thirteen  butchers,  etc. 

f  The  literal  verse  reads  :  "  Asser  teasher,"  which  is  here  applied  in  the  sense, 
that  thou  shalt  give  tithes  in  order  that  thou  mayst  become  rich,  the  word  "osher" 
also  meaning  riches. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  853 

beverages  and  spices,  and  when  the  table  was  set  down  they 
said :  '  Unto  the  Lord  bclongcth  the  earth,  with  what  fiUeth  it  * 
[Psalms  xxiv.  i],  and  when  the  tabic  was  taken  away,  they  said: 
'  The  heavens  are  the  heavens  of  the  Lord;  but  the  earth  hath 
he  given  unto  the  children  of  men.'  [Psalms  xcv.  16,]  I  said 
to  my  host,  *  My  son,  how  didst  thou  merit  all  this  ? '  Said  he, 
'  I  used  to  be  a  butcher,  and  whenever  I  came  across  a  good 
animal,  I  would  keep  it  for  Sabbath.'  Said  I  to  him:  *  Well  is 
unto  thee,  that  thou  hast  merited  this,  and  praise  be  to  God, 
who  hath  rewarded  thee.' 

Said  the  Exilarch  to  R.  Hamnuna:  "  It  is  written  [Isaiah  Iviii. 
13]:  'The  holy  day  of  the  Lord,  honorable.'  What  does  this 
'  honorable  '  signify  ?  "  R.  Hamnuna  answered  :  "  It  means  the 
Day  of  Atonement,  on  which  day  there  is  no  eating  and  no 
drinking,  and  hence  the  Thora  says,  thou  shalt  honor  it  with 
clean  clothes."  Further,  it  says  [ibid.]:  "  Thou  shalt  honor  it  " 
(this  evidently  does  not  refer  to  the  Day  of  Atonement,  which 
is  called  honorable,  but  must  again  refer  to  the  Sabbath ;  how, 
then,  should  it  be  honored  ?)  Said  Rabh  :  "  Thou  shalt  make  the 
usual  time  of  thy  meals  earlier,"  and  Samuel  said,  "  Thou  shalt 
postpone  the  ordinary  meal-hour."  The  children  of  R.  Papa  bar 
Aba  asked  R.  Papa:  "  How  shall  wc,  who  have  meat  and  wine 
ever}'  day,  distinguish  the  Sabbath  day?"  He  answered:  "  If 
ye  usually  have  your  meals  at  a  late  hour,  have  them  earlier,  and 
if  at  an  early  hour,  have  them  later." 

R.  Shesheth  (who  was  blind)  in  the  summer  used  to  seat  his 
pupils,  who  came  to  hear  him  lecture  on  Sabbath,  in  a  place 
where  the  sun  shone  earliest,  in  order  that  they  might  become 
warm  and  leave,  and  in  the  winter  used  to  seat  them  whore  the 
sun  could  not  reach  them,  that  they  might  become  cold  and  leave 
the  sooner. 

R.  Zera,  when  seeing  his  pupils  standing  in  pairs  and  discuss- 
ing the  Thora  on  the  Sabbath,  used  to  say  to  them:  "  I  pray 
ye,  go  home,  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry.  Do  not  violate  the 
Sabbath !     (It  is  made  for  pleasure  and  not  for  learning.)  " 

Rabha,  according  to  others  R.  Jehoshua  ben  Levi,  said: 
''  Even  a  man  who  prays  singly  on  the  Sabbath  eve  must  recite 
the  prayer  commencing  with  '  Thus  were  finished,'  etc.  [Gen- 
esis ii.  1-3] ;  for  R.  Hamnuna  said,  that  he  who  prays  on  the 
Sabbath  eve  and  recites  that  prayer  is  considered  by  the  verse  as 
being  a  collaborator  in  the  creation  of  the  world." 

R.    Eliczer   said:  "Whence   do   we   know    that    speaking  is 

vol..  II.  —  5 


254  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

equal  to  acting,  as  it  is  written  [Psalms  xxxiii.  6] :  '  By  the 
word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,'  " 

R.  Hisda  in  the  name  of  Mar  Uqba  said:  "  He  who  on  the 
Sabbath  recites  the  prayer  commencing  with,  '  Thus  were  fin- 
ished,' etc.,  has  the  hands  of  the  two  angels  who  accompany 
each  man  laid  on  his  head,  and  they  say  to  him  [Isaiah  vi.  7]  : 
'  And  thy  iniquity  is  departed  and  thy  sin  is  forgiven.'  " 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Jose  bar  Jchudah  said: 
"  Two  angels  accompany  a  man  on  the  Sabbath  eve  on  his  way 
home  from  the  house  of  prayer;  one  is  a  good  angel  and  the 
other  an  evil  one;  and  when  the  man  comes  home  and  finds  the 
candles  lit,  the  table  set,  and  his  bed  made  up,  the  good  angel 
says :  '  May  it  be  the  will  of  God  that  the  next  Sabbath  shall 
be  the  same,'  and  the  evil  angel  answers  '  Amen  '  involuntarily. 
If,  however,  the  man  does  not  find  everything  in  order,  the  evil 
angel  says:  '  Mayst  thou  find  it  so  on  the  next  Sabbath  also,' 
and  the  good  angel  answers  against  his  own  will :  '  Amen.'  " 

R.  Elazar  said:  "  A  man  should  set  his  table  on  the  Sabbath 
eve,  although  he  may  not  be  hungry  and  can  eat  not  more  than 
the  size  of  an  olive."  R.  Hanina  said:  "A  man  should  set 
his  table  on  the  eve  following  the  Sabbath,  though  he  may 
not  be  hungry  and  can  eat  but  the  size  of  one  olive.  (This 
is  also  in  honor  of  the  Sabbath  and  is  like  the  accompanying 
of  a  king  at  his  departure.)  Warm  water  at  the  close  of  the 
Sabbath  day  is  wholesome.  Warm  bread  at  that  time  is  also 
w^holesome. " 

R.  Abuha  used  to  have  a  calf  which  was  the  third  calf  of 
its  mother  (and  hence  the  best)  killed  for  him  at  the  close  of  the 
Sabbath  day,  and  he  ate  only  one  of  the  entrails  of  the  calf. 
When  his  son  Abhimi  grew  up,  he  (Abhimi)  said,  "  Why  kill  a 
whole  calf  for  the  sake  of  one  of  its  entrails  ?  Let  us  leave 
one  of  the  entrails  of  the  calf  killed  for  the  Sabbath  for  father, 
that  he  may  eat  it  at  the  close  of  the  Sabbath."  This  was  done, 
but  a  lion  came  and  killed  the  calf  that  was  spared. 

R.  Jchoshua  ben  Levi  said:  "He  who  answers  'Amen. 
The  Name  of  the  Eternal  be  blessed,'  with  all  his  heart,  has 
any  ill  fate  which  has  been  predestined  for  him  nullified  in 
heaven,  as  it  is  written  [Judges  v.  2]  :  '  When  depravity  had 
broken  out  in  Israel,  then  did  the  people  offer  themselves  will- 
ingly; (therefore)  praise  ye  the  Lord.'  Why  had  depravity 
broken  out  in  Israel?  Because  they  had  not  praised  the  Lord." 
R.  Hyya  bar  Abba  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  said:  "  Even   if 


TRACT    SABBATH.  255 

that  man  have  amongst  his  sins  aught  of  idolatry,  he  is  also 
forgiven." 

Said  Resh  Lakish :  "  He  who  answers  'Amen,'  etc.,  with 
all  his  might  has  the  gates  of  Paradise  opened  for  him,  as  it  is 
written  [Isaiah  xxvi.  2]  :  '  Open  ye  the  gates,  that  there  may 
enter  in  the  righteous  nation  that  guardeth  the  truth.'  "  (The 
truth  in  Hebrew  is  called  "  Emunim,"  and  Resh  Lakish  said, 
"  Do  not  read  Emunim  but  Amenim,  the  plural  for  Amen.") 
What  is  Amen  ?  Said  R.  Hanina:  "  Amen  is  the  abbreviation 
for  El  (God),  Melech  (king),  Neamon  (truth)."  (Meaning  that 
by  saying  Amen  a  man  certifies  that  his  Creator  is  the  God  and 
king  of  truth.) 

R.  Jehudah,  the  son  of  R.  Samuel,  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said : 
"  A  fire  seldom  occurs  in  a  place  unless  there  is  a  violation  of 
the  Sabbath,  as  it  is  written  [Jeremiah  xvii.  27]  :  '  But  if  ye  will 
not  hearken  unto  me  to  hallow  the  Sabbath  day,  and  not  to  bear 
a  burden,  and  to  enter  in  at  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  on  the  Sab- 
bath day;  then  will  I  kindle  a  fire  in  its  gates,  and  it  shall  devour 
the  palaces  of  Jerusalem,  and  it  shall  not  be  quenched.'  "  What 
does  "it  shall  not  be  quenched"  signify?  Said  R.  Na'hman 
bar  Itz'hak:  "  The  fire  shall  occur  at  a  time  when  men  are  not 
around,  as  a  rule." 

Abayi  said:  "  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  solely  on  account  of 
the  violation  of  the  Sabbath,  as  it  is  written  [Ezekiel  xxii.  26] : 
'  And  from  (the  violations  of)  my  Sabbaths  do  they  turn  away 
their  eyes,  so  that  I  am  profaned  among  them.'  "  R.  Abuha 
said:  "Jerusalem  was  not  destroyed  until  they  had  abolished 
the  reading  of  the  Shema  in  the  morning  and  in  the  evening, 
as  it  is  written  [Isaiah  v.  11-13]:  '  Wo  unto  those  that  rise  up 
early  in  the  morning,  that  they  may  run  after  strong  drink,  that 
continue  until  late  in  the  twilight,  till  wine  inflame  them !  And 
there  are  harp  and  psaltery,  tambourine  and  flute,  and  wine,  at 
their  drinking  feasts;  but  the  deeds  of  the  Lord  they  regard 
not,  and  the  works  of  his  hands  they  behold  not.  Therefore  are 
my  people  led  into  exile,  for  want  of  knowledge.*  "  R.  Ham- 
nuna  said:  "Jerusalem  was  not  destroyed  until  the  children 
were  kept  away  from  school,  as  it  is  written  [Jeremiah  vi.  11]: 
'  (I  must)  pour  it  out  over  the  child  in  the  street ' ;  and  it  may 
be  explained  thus:  Why  must  I  pour  it  out  ?  Because  the  child 
is  in  the  street  and  not  at  school." 

Ula  said  :  "  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  because  the  people  were 
devoid    of   shame,    as   it   is    written    [ibid.    15]:    'They   should 


256  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

have  been  ashamed  because  they  committed  an  abomination ; 
but  they  neither  felt  the  least  shame,  nor  did  they  know  how  to 
blush;  therefore  shall  they  fall  among  those  that  fall.'  " 

R,  Itz'hak  said:  "  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  only  because  no 
distinction  was  made  between  great  and  small,  as  it  is  written 
[Isaiah  xxiv.  2,  3] :  *  And  it  shall  be  the  same  with  the  people 
as  with  the  priest,  etc.  Empty,  emptied  out  shall  be  the  land. '  '  * 
R.  Amram,  the  son  of  R.  Simeon  bar  Aba,  in  the  name  of  his 
father,  quoting  R.  Hanina,  said:  "Jerusalem  was  destroyed  only 
because  the  people  did  not  admonish  one  another,  as  it  is  writ- 
ten (Lamentations  i.  6):  '  Her  princes  have  become  like  harts 
that  have  found  no  pasture.'  As  the  harts  in  a  herd  travel 
head  to  rump,  so  would  the  men  of  Jerusalem  not  dare  face 
each  other  with  admonitions,  but  followed  from  behind  in 
silence." 

R.  Jehudah  said:  "  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  because  they 
insulted  men  of  learning,  as  it  is  written  [II  Chronicles  xxxvii. 
16]:  "  But  they  mocked  at  the  messengers  of  God,  and  de- 
spised his  words,  and  scorned  his  prophets,  until  the  fuiy  of  the 
Lord  arose  against  his  people,  till  there  was  no  remedy."  What 
does  "  till  there  was  no  remedy  "  signify  ?  Said  R.  Jehudah  in 
the  name  of  Rabh:  "  He  who  insults  a  man  of  learning,  can 
find  no  panacea  for  his  affliction." 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh  said  again:  "  It  is  written 
[I  Chronicles  xvi.  22] :  '  Touch  not  my  anointed,  and  do  my 
prophets  no  harm.'  "  By  "  touch  not  my  anointed  "  is  meant 
the  children  of  the  school  (for  children  are  usually  anointed), 
and  "  do  my  prophets  no  harm  "  refers  to  the  scholars.* 

Resh  Lakish  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehudah  the  Second : 
"  The  world  is  sustained  solely  through  the  exhalation  of  the 
children"  (because  they  are  pure  and  without  sin).  Said  R. 
Papa  to  Abayi :  * '  What  about  thy  and  my  exhalation  ? ' '  Answered 
Abayi:  "The  difference  lies  therein,  that  thou  and  I  might 
have  sinned,  but  children  are  incapable  of  committing  sin." 
Resh  Lakish  said  again  in  the  name  of  the  same  authority: 
"  The  children  should  not  be  withheld  from  attending  school, 
even  while  the  new  temple  shall  be  in  process  of  construction." 

Said  Resh  Lakish  to  R.  Jehudah  the  Second:  "  I  have  heard 

*  Rashi  justifies  this  reference  by  basing  it  on  the  verse  in  Psalms  xc.  12,  which 
he  interprets:  "A  prophet  has  a  heart  endowed  with  wisdom";  although  Isaac 
Leeser  translates  the  verse,  "  That  we  may  obtain  a  heart  endowed  with  wisdom," 
the  Hebrew  word  Navi  meaning  both  "  prophet  "  and  also  "  we  may  obtain." 


TRACT    SABBATH.  257 

a  tradition  coming  from  thy  parents  which  says,  that  the  city 
which  has  no  school  for  children  shall  be  destroyed;  but  Rabhina 
says,  the  tradition  is  to  the  effect  that  the  high  court  shall  put 
the  city  under  a  ban  (until  a  school  is  built  for  children)." 

Rabha  said:  Jerusalem  was  destro)'ed  solely  because  there 
were  no  more  trustworthy  men  there,  as  it  is  written  [Jeremiah 
V.  i]:  "  Roam  about  through  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  and  sec 
now,  and  notice,  and  search  in  its  broad  places,  if  ye  can  find 
one  man,  if  there  be  one  that  cxecutcth  justice,  that  searcheth 
for  truth:  and  I  will  pardon  it."  What  is  meant  by  trustworthy 
men  ?     Such  as  can  be  trusted  in  business. 

MISHNA:  Further,  one  may  save  a  basket  full  of  loaves  (of 
bread),  be  it  even  enough  for  a  hundred  meals,  a  fig-cake,  and  a 
cask  of  wine;  and  one  may  also  call  to  others:  "  Come  ye  and 
save  for  yourselves!"  If  those  who  do  so  understand  their 
advantage,  they  make  a  settlement  with  the  owner  after  the 
Sabbath  is  over.  Where  may  such  articles  be  taken  to  (for 
safety)  ?  To  a  court  that  is  joined  to  the  other  (court  of  the 
house  burning)  by  an  Erub.  Ben  Bathyra  says:  "  Even  to  one 
that  is  not  joined  by  an  Erub." 

There  all  utensils  (dishes)  may  be  brought,  that  are  used  on 
the  same  day;  one  may  (in  the  event  of  a  confllagration  on  the 
Sabbath)  put  on  as  many  clothes  as  possible,  and  may  wrap 
himself  in  w'hatcver  is  possible.  R.  Jose  says:  "  One  may  only 
put  on  eighteen  pieces  of  ordinary  apparel,  but  he  can  come 
back  as  often  as  he  chooses  and  put  on  the  same  quantity  and 
carry  them  off."  One  may  also  call  to  others:  "  Come  ye  and 
save  with  me  (whatever  ye  can)!  " 

GEMARA :  Have  we  not  learned,  in  the  preceding  Mishna 
[page  245],  that  only  (enough  victuals  for)  three  meals  may  be 
saved  (and  in  the  above  Mishna  sufficient  for  a  hundred  meals 
is  permitted)?  Said  R.  Huna:  "This  presents  no  difficulty.  Our 
Mishna  refers  to  one  who  comes  to  save  the  food  with  only  one 
basket  (when  he  may  fill  it  with  any  quantity,  whereas  the  pre- 
ceding Mishna  refers  to  one  who  brings  several  baskets,  and  in 
such  a  case  it  is  not  permitted  to  put  in  each  basket  more  than 
sufficient  for  three  meals)."  But  R.  Aba  bar  Zavda  in  the  name 
of  Rabh  said:  "Both  Mishnas  refer  to  one  who  comes  even 
with  several  baskets,  but  still  no  difficulty  arises.  This  Mishna 
speaks  of  one  who  does  not  carry  the  food  beyond  the  same 
court,  while  the  other  refers  to  one  who  carries  it  into  another 
court." 


258  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

"  A  fig-cake,''  etc.  Why  does  the  Mishna  say,  that  if  those 
who  save  for  themselves  know  their  advantage  they  will  make  a 
settlement  with  the  owner  after  having  saved  the  things  from 
the  conflagration  ?  Are  they  not  entitled  to  it  under  any  circum- 
stances, by  virtue  of  the  owner  having  made  it  public  property 
when  saying,  "  Come  ye  and  save  for  yourselves"  ?  Said  R. 
Hisda:  "  This  refers  to  pious  people  who  would  not  take  advan- 
tage of  a  man  who  is  compelled  to  sacrifice  his  property."  Said 
Rabha:  "Can  they  be  called  pious,  who  accept  remuneration 
for  their  time  on  the  Sabbath  ?  Nay;  the  Mishna  does  not  refer 
to  pious  men,  but  to  God-fearing  men,  who,  while  they  would  not 
take  anything  not  belonging  to  them,  would  not  care  to  trouble 
themselves  gratuitously.  By  stating,  therefore,  that  those  who 
know  their  advantage  will  settle  accounts  with  the  owner  after- 
wards, the  Mishna  means  to  say  that  their  prudence  consists  in 
their  knowing  that  they  will  not  receive  any  remuneration  for 
their  time  on  Sabbath,  but  will  only  receive  their  own  property 
as  their  due." 

"  Come  ye  and  save  with  me.''  Why  does  the  first  part  of 
the  Mishna  permit  the  saying  of  "  Come  and  save  for  your- 
selves," and  in  the  last  part  the  permission  is  given  to  say: 
"Come  and  save  with  me"  ?  Because  the  first  part  of  the 
Mishna  refers  to  victuals,  and  a  man  cannot  save  more  than  sufifi- 
cient  for  three  meals,  while  the  last  part  of  the  Mishna  refers  to 
clothing;  and  as  a  man  can  change  his  clothing  as  often  as  he 
pleases,  he  may  call  to  others  to  come  and  help  him  save  what- 
ever is  possible. 

"  One  may  put  on  as  many  clothes  as  possible."  The  rabbis 
taught :  One  may  dress  himself,  go  out  and  undress,  come  back 
and  dress  again,  and  so  on  as  often  as  he  chooses.  So  said  R. 
Meir.  R.  Jose,  however,  said,  that  one  may  put  on  only  eigh- 
teen pieces  of  ordinary  apparel.  These  were:  i  and  2.  Macturen 
and  Unqly,  a  mantle  with  a  head-hold;  3.  Funda,  pocket  for 
money;  4.  Kalbtis,  a  dress  without  sleeves;  5.  Chaluk,  a  kind  of 
shirt ;  6.  Apiliute,  cover  or  overcoat ;  7.  Maopareth ;  8  and  9. 
Drawers  and  pantaloons  and  cap  for  the  head;  10  and  11.  Shoes; 
12  and  13.  Socks;  14  and  15.  Pargtid,  striped  suit;  16.  Girdle; 
17.    Hat;   18.    Neckties. 

MISHNA:  R.  Simeon,  the  son  of  Nanas,  says:  "  One  may 
spread  a  goat-skin  over  a  chest,  a  box,  or  a  cupboard,  which  has 
caught  fire,  so  that  they  only  become  singed.  One  may  also 
form  a  partition  with  any  utensil  (or  vessel),  be  it  full  of  water 


TRACT   SABBATH.  259 

or  not,  in  order  to  keep  the  fire  from  spreading.  R.  Jose  for- 
bids the  making  of  such  a  partition  with  new  earthenware  vessels 
filled  with  water,  because  such  vessels  cannot  stand  heat,  but 
burst  and  extinguish  the  fire." 

GEMARA:  R.  Johudah  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh :  "  When 
one  side  of  a  garment  has  caught  fire,  the  other  side  may  be  put 
in  water,  and  if  thereby  the  fire  is  extinguished  it  makes  no 
difTerence. "  An  objection  was  made:  We  have  learned  in  a  To- 
sephta,  that  if  a  garment  has  caught  fire  one  may  wrap  it  around 
him,  and  it  makes  no  difference  if  the  fire  is  thereby  extin- 
guished. One  may  also  unroll  the  Sacred  Scrolls,  if  the  covering 
has  caught  fire  on  one  side,  and  it  does  not  matter  if  thus  the 
fire  is  quenched.  (This  Tosephta  then  simply  permits  the  un- 
folding or  the  folding  of  d  garment  that  has  caught  fire,  but  says 
nothing  about  soaking  the  undamaged  part  in  water.)  Rabh 
holds  with  R.  Simeon,  the  son  of  Nanas,  in  the  above  Mishna 
(who  permits  the  prevention  of  the  fire).  R.  Simeon,  however, 
restricts  his  permission  so  that,  while  preventing  the  fire,  it  is  not 
extinguished,  but  simply  singes  the  objects  (when  the  article, 
however,  is  soaked  in  water  the  fire  will  certainly  be  quenched, 
and  did  R.  Simeon  permit  this  also  ?)  Yea,  he  did ;  for  the  last 
part  of  the  Mishna  relates,  that  R.  Jose  forbids  the  making  of  a 
partition  with  new  pottery  filled  with  water,  because  such  vessels 
are  liable  to  burst  and  extinguish  the  fire;  and  if  R.  Jose  forbids 
this,  surely  R.  Simeon  (the  first  Tana)  must  have  permitted  it 
in  the  first  part  of  the  Mishna. 

The  rabbis  taught:  If  a  candle  fall  on  the  table,  the  table 
board  may  be  raised  and  the  candle  dropped  to  the  floor,  and  if 
it  become  extinguished,  it  matters  not.  Another  Boraitha 
taught,  that  if  a. candle  burn  behind  a  door,  the  door  maybe 
opened  and  closed  as  usual,  regardless  of  whether  the  candle  is 
thus  extinguished.  Rabh  scolded  the  one  that  thus  decreed. 
Said  Rabhina  to  R.  A'ha  the  son  of  Rabha,  according  to  others 
R.  A'ha  the  son  of  Rabha  to  R.  Ashi:  "  Why  did  Rabh  scold 
the  one  who  made  that  decree  ?  Shall  we  say  that  it  was 
because  he  holds  with  R.  Jehudah  (who  says  that  an  indirect 
act  is  also  prohibited),  and  the  Boraitha  holds  with  R.  Simeon, 
who  permits  the  performance  of  an  indirect  act;  is  it  possible 
that  Rabh  will  scold  every  one  who  holds  with  R.  Simeon  ?" 
He  answered:  "  In  this  matter  R.  Simeon  would  also  agree  that 
this  is  prohibited,  as  it  would  bo  like  decapitating  a  man  without 
killing  him." 


26o  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

R.  Jehudah  said :  "  One  may  open  a  door  opposite  a  hearth- 
fire."  Abayi  scolded  the  one  that  decreed  thus.  Of  what  cir- 
cumstances do  we  treat  here  ?  If  the  door  is  opened  when  there 
is  an  ordinary  wind  blowing,  what  reason  had  the  one  to  pro- 
hibit it ;  and  if  there  be  an  extraordinary  wind  blowing,  why  did 
the  other  permit  it  ?  The  case  here  treated  of  is  that  of  an 
ordinary  wind,  and  the  one  prohibits  the  door  being  opened  as  a 
precautionary  measure,  lest  this  be  done  when  a  high  wind  is 
blowing,  while  the  other  does  not  regard  a  precautionary  meas- 
ure necessary. 

"  One  may  also  form  a  partitiofi,''  etc.  Shall  we  say  that  the 
rabbis  hold  the  indirect  bringing  about  of  an  extinction  to  be  per- 
missible and  R.  Jose  holds  to  the  contrary?  Have  we  not  heard 
the  case  to  be  the  reverse  ?  We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha: 
One  may  make  a  partition  with  empty  vessels,  and  with  vessels 
filled  with  water  that  are  not  liable  to  burst,  and  such  are  iron 
vessels.  R.  Jose,  however,  says,  that  the  vessels  made  of  pot- 
tery in  the  villages  of  Shihin  and  Hananiah  are  also  proof  against 
bursting.  Thus  we  see  that  R.  Jose  is  even  more  lenient  than 
the  rabbis  ?  This  presents  no  difficulty,  for  the  above  Boraitha 
is  altogether  in  accordance  with  R.  Jose;  but  it  is  incomplete, 
and  should  read  thus:  "  One  may  make  a  partition  with  empty 
vessels,  and  with  such  as  are  filled  with  water  but  are  not  liable 
to  burst;  and  such  vessels  are  iron  vessels  and  vessels  made  of 
pottery  in  the  villages  of  Shihin  and  Hananiah,"  as  R.  Jose  says 
that  the  vessels  made  of  pottery  in  these  villages  are  proof 
against  heat. 

MISHNA:  If  a  non-Israelite  comes  near  to  extinguish  (the 
fire),  one  must  neither  say  to  him:  "  Extinguish  (it),"  nor  "  Do 
not  extinguish  it,"  and  for  the  reason,  that  one  is  not  obliged 
to  make  him  rest  (on  Sabbath).  If  a  minor,  however,  desires  to 
extinguish  the  fire,  one  must  not  allow  him  to  do  so,  because 
one  is  obliged  to  see  that  he  (the  minor)  rests  (on  Sabbath). 

GEMARA:  R.  Ami  said:  "  During  a  conflagration  one  may 
proclaim:  '  Whoever  will  come  and  extinguish  the  fire,  will  lose 
nothing  by  it.'  " 

The  rabbis  taught :  It  happened  that  a  fire  broke  out  in  the 
court  of  Joseph  ben  Simai  in  the  town  of  Shihin,  and  the  men 
of  the  fortress  of  Sepphoris  came  to  extinguish  the  fire,  because 
Joseph  was  an  official  of  the  government ;  but  he  would  not  allow 
them  to  do  so,  in  honor  of  the  Sabbath.  A  miracle  occurred, 
and  it  commenced  to  rain,  and  the  fire  was  extinguished.     That 


TRACT   SABBATH.  261 

evening  he  sent  to  each  man  in  the  fortress  two  selah  and  to  their 
officer  fifty  selah.  When  the  sages  heard  this,  they  said  :  "  It  was 
not  at  all  necessary  to  do  this,  because  the  Mishna  says,  that 
when  a  Gentile  comes  to  extinguish  a  fire  on  Sabbath,  one  need 
not  tell  him  to  do  it,  or  not  to  do  it." 

''  If  a  minor,  however,  desires  to  extinguish  the  fire,"  etc. 
Could  we  conclude  from  this,  that  if  a  minor  is  detected  eating 
forbidden  food  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court  of  justice  to  prevent 
his  doing  so  (and  we  know  such  is  not  the  case)  ?  Said  R. 
Johanan :  "  Yea;  if  the  minor  does  this  with  his  father's  knowl- 
edge. We  must  say,  then,  that  the  same  case  applies  to  the 
Gentile,  who  does  the  work  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Israelite 
whose  house  is  burning.  Is  this  permitted  ?  Yea,  it  is;  for  the 
Gentile  does  it  of  his  own  volition,  and  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  the  Israelite  knows  it  or  not  (because  he,  the  Gentile, 
knows  he  will  be  rewarded)." 

MISHNA •.  One  may  cover  the  top  of  a  lamp  with  a  vessel 
in  order  that  the  ceiling  may  not  catch  fire,  and  also  cover  the 
ordure  (of  poultry*)  on  account  of  the  children  (in  the  house). 
(One  may  also  place  a  vessel)  over  a  scorpion  in  order  to  prevent 
him  from  biting.  R.  Jehudah  said:  "  A  case  of  this  kind  hap- 
pened once  in  the  presence  of  R.  Johanan  ben  Zakai  in  Arab, 
and  he  said,  '  I  am  not  certain  whether  (the  man)  is  not  culpable 
(and  bound  to  bring  a  sin-offering).'  " 

GEMARA:  R.  Jehudah,  R.  Jeremiah  b.  Aba,  and  R.  Hanon 
b.  Ram  happened  to  be  the  guests  of  Abin  of  Nishikia.  The  two 
former  were  furnished  with  beds,  and  the  last  one  was  not.  At 
the  same  time,  he  noticed  him  teaching  his  son  that  the  ordure 
of  a  child  is  to  be  covered,  in  order  that  the  child  should  not 
touch  it;  and  he  said,  "  Abin  the  fool  is  teaching  foolishness  to 
his  children.  Is  not  the  ordure  of  a  child  useful  for  dogs  ? 
What  can  you  say  ?  It  was  not  prepared  from  yesterday.  But 
this  makes  no  difference ;  for  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  that 
running  rivers  and  springing  wells  are  to  be  considered  as  the 
feet  of  every  man."  And  Abin  asked,  "  How,  then,  shall  we 
teach  ?"  And  Hanon  answered,  "  Over  the  ordure  of  poultry, 
that  the  child  shall  not  touch  it." 

'  *  Over  a  scorpion  in  order  to  prevent  him  from  biting. ' '  R. 
Jehoshua  ben  Levi  said:  "All  dangerous  creatures  may  be 
killed  on  Sabbath."     R.  Joseph  raised  an  objection:  "  We  have 

*  According  to  the  explanation  of  the  Gemara.  Sec  also  translation  of  the 
Mishna  by  De  Sola  and  Kaphall. 


262  ~  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

learned  in  a  Boraitha,  that  five  creatures  may  be  killed  on  Sab- 
bath, and  they  are:  the  fly  of  Egypt,  the  wasp  of  Nineveh,  and 
the  serpent  of  Hadaiev,  and  the  snake  of  Palestine,  and  a  mad 
dog  from  any  region."  According  to  whose  opinion  is  this  Bo- 
raitha ?  It  is  not  according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Jehudah,  who 
holds,  that  the  performance  of  an  act  not  in  itself  necessary 
makes  one  culpable  ?  We  must  say,  then,  that  the  Boraitha 
agrees  with  R.  Simeon.  If  this  is  so,  is  it  allowed  to  kill  only 
these  five,  and  not  others  ?  Said  R.  Jeremiah:  "  Who  can  tell 
us  that  this  Boraitha  is  a  correct  one  ?  It  may  be  erroneous." 
Said  R.  Joseph:  "I  have  studied  the  Boraitha.  The  same 
objection  was  made  before  me,  and  I  defended  it  by  stating,  that 
the  Boraitha  refers  to  the  case  where  the  creatures  pursued  the 
man  in  order  to  harm  him,  and  under  these  circumstances  even 
R.  Jehudah  permits  the  killing  of  these  creatures." 

A  certain  disciple  related  before  Rabha,  the  son  of  R.  Huna, 
quoting  a  Boraitha:  "  One  who  kills  serpents  and  snakes  on  the 
Sabbath  does  not  find  favor  in  the  eyes  of  the  pious."  An- 
swered Rabha:  "  And  these  pious  men  do  not  find  favor  in  the 
eyes  of  our  sages."  Thus  he  differs  with  R.  Huna,  for  it  hap- 
pened that  R.  Huna,  seeing  a  man  killing  a  snake  on  Sabbath, 
said  to  him :  Hast  thou  killed  the  last  of  them  (if  thou  hast 
only  killed  one,  of  what  use  is  it  to  violate  the  Sabbath  ?  From 
this  we  see  that  R.  Huna  differs  from  the  opinion  of  his  son.) 

The  rabbis  taught :  If  a  man  met  snakes  on  the  road  and 
killed  them,  it  was  decreed  above  that  he  should  kill  them  (thus 
removing  danger  for  others,  because  a  good  deed  is  performed 
through  a  righteous  man);  if,  however,  he  did  not  kill  them,  it 
was  decreed  above  that  he  should  be  killed  by  them  (that  is,  he 
is  a  sinner  and  deserving  of  death),  but  through  the  mercy  of 
the  Lord  a  miracle  was  performed,  and  he  was  saved.  Said 
Ula,  according  to  others  Rabba  bar  bar  Hana,  in  the  name  of 
R.  Johanan :  "  Only  in  case  the  snakes  prepared  to  strike  at  the 
man,  can  it  be  said  that  it  was  decreed  that  the  man  should  be 
killed." 

R.  Aba  bar  Kahana  said:  "  It  happened  that  a  snake  was 
found  in  the  school-house,  and  a  man  of  the  city  of  Neiety  killed 
it."  Said  Rabbi:  "He  met  his  equal."  The  schoolman 
asked:  "  Did  Rabbi  mean,  that  the  man  was  right  in  his  deed, 
or  on  the  contrary?"  Come  and  hear:  R.  Aba,  the  son  of 
Hyya  b.  Aba,  and  R.  Zera  were  sitting  in  the  hut  of  R.  Janai, 
and  they  resolved  to  ask  R.  Janai  if  one  might  kill  snakes  and 


TRACT   SABBATH.  263 

serpents  on  the  Sabbath.  And  he  answered  :  "  If  a  bee  should 
annoy  me,  I  would  kill  it;  a  fortiori,  snakes  and  serpents," 

Aba  the  son  of  Marta,  who  is  Aba  the  son  of  Minyumi,  was 
indebted  in  a  sum  of  money  to  the  Exilarch's  house.  He  was 
brought  there  and  was  worried.  While  standing  in  the  room, 
Aba  spat  on  the  floor.  This  happened  on  the  Sabbath,  and  the 
Exilarch  ordered  his  serwints  to  bring  a  dish  and  cover  up  the 
spittle.  Said  Aba  to  him  :  "  This  is  not  necessary,  for  R.  Jchu- 
dah  says,  that  one  may  put  his  foot  on  spittle  and  thus  clear  it 
off."  Thereupon  the  Exilarch  remarked:  "  This  proves  to  me 
that  the  man  is  a  young  scholar;  let  him  go  in  peace." 

Aba  bar  Kahana  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Hanina:  "  The  lamps 
of  the  house  of  Rabbi  may  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath."  R. 
Zera  asked  him  :  "  Which  lamps  do  you  refer  to,  the  lamps  that 
can  be  handled  with  one  hand,  or  those  that  require  both  hands  "? 
and  he  answered:  "  The  same  as  can  be  found  in  your  father's 
house  (those  were  small  lamps)."  The  same  Aba  said  in  the 
name  of  the  same  authority,  that  the  carriages  of  the  house  of 
Rabbi  might  also  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath.  R.  Zera  asked  him 
which  he  referred  to,  those  that  one  man  can  pull,  or  those  that 
require  two  men,  and  the  answer  was:  "  The  same  that  your 
father  possesses."  Aba  bar  Kahana  said  again,  that  the  same 
R.  Hanina  permitted  the  house  of  Rabbi  to  drink  wine  that 
was  sealed  with  but  one  seal,  in  the  markets  of  the  heathens, 
and  he  states,  that  he  does  not  know  whether  R.  Hanina  holds 
with  R.  EHczer  (who  held  that  one  seal  only  was  necessar)')  or 
whether  he  permitted  this  out  of  respect  to  the  house  of  the 
Nassi  (for  fear  that  if  he  prohibited  this,  they  would  become 
angry*). 

I\nSHNA:  If  a  non-Israelite  lit  a  lamp  on  the  Sabbath,  the 
Israelite  might  make  use  of  the  light.  If  he  (the  non-Israelite) 
did  so  (especially)  for  the  Israelite,  the  latter  must  not  use  it. 
If  the  non-Israelite  filled  up  (a  trough)  with  water,  to  water  his 
(own)  cattle,  the  Israelite  may  water  his  cattle  after  him;  if  he 
did  so  for  the  Israelite  (especially),  the  latter  must  not  water  his 
cattle  with  it.  If  a  non-Israelite  made  a  stairway  in  order  to 
descend  upon  it  from  a  ship,  the  Israelite  might  descend  after 
him;  if  he  made  it  (especially)  for  the  Israelite,  the  latter  must 
not  descend.  Once  R.  Gamaliel  and  several  elders  arrived  on  a 
ship  (on  Sabbath)  and  a  non-Israelite  made  a  stairway  upon  which 

*  Rashi  gives  this  a  different  explanation,  but  the  above  seems  correct  to  us. 


264  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

to  descend  (from  the  ship),  whereupon  R.  Gamaliel  and  the 
elders  also  descended. 

GEMARA:  And  it  is  necessary  for  the  Mishna  to  mention 
the  above  cases  separately,  because  if  we  were  taught  only  con- 
cerning a  lamp,  we  would  say,  that  a  lamp  only  may  be  used 
because  a  lamp  will  give  light  for  a  hundred  men  as  well  as  for 
one;  but  as  for  water,  we  might  say,  that  the  water  should  not 
be  used,  in  precaution  lest  the  non-Israelite  replenish  the  trough 
especially  for  the  Israelite.  For  what  purpose,  however,  is  the 
stairway  mentioned  ?  That  was  only  for  the  purpose  of  relating 
what  happened  to  R.  Gamaliel  and  the  elders. 

The  rabbis  taught :  With  grass  which  a  Gentile  mowed  for 
his  own  cattle,  an  Israelite  may  feed  his  cattle,  but  if  the  grass 
was  mowed  especially  for  the  Israelite,  he  may  not.  The  same 
rule  applies  to  water  for  watering  the  cattle.  This  applies  only 
where  the  Gentile  and  the  Israelite  are  not  acquainted ;  but  if 
they  are,  it  is  not  allowed,  under  any  circumstances.  This  is 
not  so!  For  R.  Huna  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Hanina,  that  a 
man  may  allow  his  cattle  to  graze  on  the  Sabbath,  but  must  not 
feed  them  on  grass  which  he  designated  previously  for  some 
other  purpose  (it  matters  not  whether  the  grass  is  still  uncut  or 
cut).  (Now,  we  see  that  things  which  have  been  designated  for 
another  purpose  must  not  be  fed  to  cattle  on  the  Sabbath ;  how 
then  is  it  allowed  to  feed  one's  cattle  on  the  Gentile's  grass 
which  was  cut  on  the  Sabbath,  and  surely  designated  for  some 
express  purpose  ?)  This  presents  no  difficulty;  for  the  permis- 
sion to  feed  one's  cattle  on  the  Gentile's  grass  only  holds  good 
if  the  cattle  feed  themselves,  and  the  man  may  stand  by  and 
prevent  them  from  invading  another  pasture  (but  does  not  allow 
the  man  to  feed  them  by  hand). 

It  is  said  above:  "  This  applies  only  where  the  Gentile  and 
the  Israelite  are  not  acquainted,"  etc.  Is  this  so  ?  Did  not  R. 
Gamaliel  descend  on  the  stairway,  although  he  and  the  Gentile 
were  acquainted  ?  Said  Abayi  :  "  The  Gentile  made  the  stair- 
way when  R.  Gamaliel  did  not  see  him."  But  Rabhasaid:  "  It 
may  be  that  the  stairway  was  made  in  the  presence  of  R.  Gama- 
liel, but  this  case  would  be  the  same  as  that  of  a  lamp.  A  lamp 
for  one  is  a  lamp  for  a  hundred." 

An  objection  was  made  to  the  teaching  of  Rabha:  We  have 
learned  in  a  Tosephta:  R.  Gamaliel  said  to  the  elders:  "  As  the 
Gentile  made  the  stairway  while  we  were  not  looking,  we  may 
descend  on  it."      Answered  Rabha:    "  Read  simply,   that    R. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  165 

Gamaliel  said, '  because  the  Gentile  had  already  made  it,  we  may 
use  it.'  " 

Samuel  happened  to  arrive  at  the  house  of  Abin  in  Touron 
on  a  Sabbath.  A  Gentile  came  and  lit  a  candle.  Samuel  turned 
his  face  away  from  the  light ;  but  after  seeing  that  the  Gentile 
brought  a  paper  and  commenced  to  read  by  the  light  of  that 
candle,  he  said:  "  I  see  now  that  the  Gentile  lit  the  candle  for 
his  own  use,"  and  he  then  made  use  of  it  himself. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

REGULATIONS    CONCERNING    THE    HANDLING    OF    UTENSILS    AND     FUR- 
NITURE   ON    THE    SABBATH. 

MISHNA:  All  utensils  (and  furniture)  which  may  be 
handled  on  the  Sabbath,  their  doors  (lids)  may  be  handled  with 
them,  even  when  their  lids  had  been  removed;  for  such  lids  can- 
not be  considered  as  house-doors,  which  are  not  intended  to  be 
removed.  One  may  take  a  hammer  on  the  Sabbath  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cracking  nuts,  an  axe  to  chop  fig-cake,  a  hand-saw  to 
saw  cheese,  a  shovel  to  gather  up  dried  figs,  a  fan  and  a  fork  to 
place  a  thing  (food)  before  a  child,  a  spindle  and  a  shuttle  to 
pick  fruit,  a  sewing-needle  to  remove  a  splinter  (from  the  flesh), 
and  a  packing  needle  to  open  a  door. 

GEMARA:  ''All  utensils  which  may  be  handled  on  the 
Sabbath,  their  doors  {lids)  may  be  handled  with  tJievi,  even  when 
their  lids  had  been  removed.''  Removed  when,  on  Sabbath? 
and  if  removed  on  a  week-day  they  certainly  may  be  handled  ? 
Why,  on  the  contrary.  On  Sabbath  the  lids  being  attached  to 
the  utensils,  they  were  intended  for  use  with  the  utensils;  but 
if  removed  on  week-days,  they  did  not  form  part  of  the  uten- 
sils on  the  Sabbath,  hence  not  intended  for  simultaneous  use, 
and  should  not  be  handled !  Said  Abayi :  The  Mishna  means  to 
say,  that  the  lids  may  be  handled  with  the  utensils  on  the  Sab- 
bath even  if  the  lids  had  been  removed  on  a  week-day. 

The  rabbis  taught:  "  The  doors  (lids)  of  a  drawer,  chest,  or 
cage,  may  be  taken  down  on  the  Sabbath,  but  not  replaced. 
The  door  of  a  chicken-coop  (which  is  built  in  the  ground)  must 
not  be  removed  nor  replaced  on  the  Sabbath."  It  may  be  right 
to  prohibit  the  removing  or  replacing  of  the  door  of  a  chicken- 
coop  (built  in  the  ground),  because  removing  it  would  constitute 
the  act  of  tearing  down,  and  replacing  it  would  constitute  build- 
ing, but  as  for  the  doors  of  a  drawer,  chest,  or  cage,  what  is  the 
opinion  of  the  rabbis  ?  Do  they  hold  that  the  acts  of  building 
and  tearing  down  apply  also  to  utensils  ?  If  so,  why  do  they 
permit  the  removing  of  the  doors  (lids);  and  if  not,  why  do  they 

266 


TRACT   SABBATH.  267 

prohibit  replacing  them?  Said  Rabha:  "The  act  of  building 
does  not  apply  to  utensils,  but  replacing  is  prohibited  more  as  a 
precautionary  measure,  lest  one  drive  the  door  in  with  a  stick 
(and  this  would  constitute  the  act  of  hammering)." 

"  One  may  take  a  hammer,"  etc.  Said  R.  Jchudah  :  This 
refers  to  a  hammer  intended  only  for  nut-cracking,  and  such  a 
hammer  may  be  used  to  crack  nuts,  but  a  smith's  hammer  must 
not  be  used  for  that  purpose;  [for  R.  Jehudah  holds,  that  a 
thing  which  is  intended  only  for  an  act  prohibited  on  the  Sab- 
bath, must  not  be  used  even  for  a  permissible  act].  Rabba, 
however,  says,  that  a  smith's  hammer  may  be  used  to  crack  nuts 
[for  he  holds  that  a  thing  which  is  intended  only  for  a  prohibited 
act,  may  be  used  for  a  permissible  act]. 

It  was  taught :  R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  in  the  name  of  R. 
Johanan  said:  "We  have  learned,  that  a  hammer  which  is 
intended  for  hammering  gold  may  also  be  used  for  cracking 
nuts."  R.  Shoman  bar  Aba  said:  "  We  have  learned,  that  the 
hammer  referred  to  is  intended  to  be  used  for  spices." 

The  one  who  teaches  that  a  spice-hammer  may  be  used  cer- 
tainly permits  a  gold-hammer;  but  the  one  permitting  a  gold- 
hammer  to  be  used,  does  not  allow  a  spice-hammer,  because  a 
spice-hammer  must  be  kept  perfectly  clean,  and  is  usually  laid 
away  for  non-use  during  the  Sabbath. 

"  A  spindle  and  a  shuttle  to  pick  fruit,'*  etc.  The  rabbis 
taught :  A  date  which  was  not  quite  ripe,  and  was  put  in  straw 
which  was  intended  for  use  in  clay-making,  might  be  taken  out, 
providing  it  was  not  completely  covered  by  the  straw,  but 
enough  to  take  hold  of  was  left  uncovered.  The  same  applies 
to  a  cake  which  was  taken  out  of  the  oven  not  quite  done,  and 
was  put  in  glowing  cinders  to  be  cooked;  but  R.  Eliezer  ben 
Tadai  said,  that  both  the  date  and  the  cake  might  be  taken  out 
even  when  completely  covered,  providing  this  is  done  with  a 
prong,  and  then  the  straw  or  the  ashes  respectively  fall  off  of 
themselves.  Said  R.  Na'hman :  "  The  Halakha  prevails  accord- 
ing to  R.  Eliezer  ben  Tadai." 

From  this  we  see  that  R.  Na'hman  holds,  that  handling  in 
an  unusual  manner  is  not  considered  handling  at  all;  but  did  not 
R.  Na'hman  say,  that  if  a  radish  is  deposited  in  earth  with  its 
roots  downwards  and  its  head  upwards  and  protruding  from  the 
earth,  it  may  be  taken  out;  but  if  deposited  head  downwards, 
it  must  not  be  taken  out  (and  thus  wc  see  that  R.  Na'hman 
regards  handling  in  an   unusual   manner  the  same  as  handling 


268  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

proper)  ?    The  answer  is,  that  R.  Na'hman  afterward  retracted 
his  decision  concerning  the  radish. 

' '  A  sewing-needle  to  remove  a  splinter. ' '  Rabha  the  son  of 
Rabba  sent  a  request  to  R.  Joseph:  "  Let  the  master  teach  us 
the  law  regarding  a  needle,  the  eyelet  or  the  point  of  which  had 
been  broken  off."  R.  Joseph  answered:  "We  have  learned 
this  in  our  Mishna:  'A  sewing-needle  to  remove  a  splinter.' 
What  difference  would  it  make  to  the  splinter  whether  the 
needle  has  an  eyelet  or  not?"  Rabha  objected:  "We  have 
learned,  that  a  needle,  the  eye  or  the  point  of  which  had  been 
broken  off,  is  not  subject  to  defilement."  Said  Abayi:  "  Thou 
confusest  Sabbath  with  defilement  ?  As  for  defilement,  a  vessel 
must  be  complete  in  order  to  be  subject  to  defilement ;  but  for 
Sabbath  use,  anything  which  can  be  used  is  in  itself  sufficient, 
and  with  this  needle  I  can  remove  a  splinter." 

R.  Na'hman  forbids  the  straightening  of  the  limbs  of  a  child 
at  birth  on  the  Sabbath,  and  R.  Shesheth  permits  it. 

MISHNA:  The  hollow  olive-cane  is  subject  to  defilement  if 
it  has  a  knot ;  if  not,  it  is  not  subject  to  defilement.  In  any  event, 
it  may  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath. 

R.  Jose*  saith:  "  Any  utensil  may  be  handled  on  the  Sab- 
bath, with  the  exception  of  the  large  wood-saw  and  the  plough- 
share." 

GEMARA:  The  rabbis  taught :  Previously  only  three  uten- 
sils were  permitted  to  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath,  and  they  were : 
a  knife  to  chop  pressed  dates,  a  skimmer,  and  a  small  table- 
knife.  Subsequently  more  was  allowed,  and  then  still  more, 
and  then  more  again,  until  finally  any  utensil  was  allowed  with 
the  exception  of  the  wood-saw  and  the  ploughshare. 

What  is  meant  by  "  subsequently  more  was  allowed,  and  then 
still  more,"  etc.  ?  Said  Rabha:  They  allowed  a  thing  which  was 
intended  for  use  in  a  permissible  act,  whether  it  was  needed  for 
another  purpose,  or  whether  the  room  it  occupied  was  needed ; 
then  still  more  was  allowed,  namely:  to  shift  a  thing  out  of  the 
sunshine  to  a  shady  place ;  then  more  again  was  allowed,  namely : 
a  thing  that  was  intended  for  use  in  a  prohibited  act  {e.g.,  a 
smith's  hammer)  was  permitted  to  be  used  for  another  purpose 
or  when  its  room  was  needed ;  but  it  was  not  permitted  to  be 
moved    from    the   sunshine    into    the   shade,    and   all    this  was 


*  In  the  Mishna  of  Y'ost  and  De  Sola  and  Kaphall,  R.  Jchudali  was  credited  with 
the  saying,  but  in  our  original  R.  Jose  is  named,  as  is  proven  in  Erubhin  35  a. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  269 

allowed  to  be  done  by  only  one  person,  but  not  by  two,   until 
finally  all  utensils  might  be  handled  even  by  two  persons. 

Abayi  raised  an  objection  to  this:  "  We  have  learned,  that  a 
mortar  which  contained  garlic  may  be  handled,  but  if  it  did  not 
contain  garlic  it  must  not  be  handled."  The  answer  was  this  :  It 
is  meant,  to  remove  from  the  sunshine  to  the  shade.  R.  Hanina 
said :  This  Mishna  was  taught  in  the  times  of  R.  Nehemiah  ben 
Hahalyah,  as  it  is  written  [Nehemiah  xiii.  15]:  "  In  those  days 
I  saw  in  Judah  some  treading  wine-presses  on  the  Sabbath,  and 
bringing  in  sheaves,  etc."  (and  because  in  those  times  there  was 
great  laxity  in  keeping  the  Sabbath,  strict  laws  were  made  as 
a  precaution,  and  even  a  mortar  was  not  allowed  to  be  handled 
unless  it  contained  some  eatables).  Said  R.  Elazar:  The  Mish- 
nas  relating  to  the  pieces  of  wood  for  the  showbreads  in  Tract 
Menahoth,  the  sticks  used  by  the  priests  for  the  Passover  sacrifice 
in  the  Tract  Pesachim,  the  bolts  in  the  Tract  Kelim,  and  the 
above  Mishna  relating  to  the  mortar  (all  of  which  prohibit  the 
handling  of  such  things  on  Sabbath)  were  all  taught  before  it 
was  allowed  to  handle  all  vessels. 

MISHNA:  The  utensils  may  also  be  handled  with  intent  to 
use  them  or  without  such  intent.  R.  Nehemiah  saith :  "  They 
may  be  handled  only  if  intended  for  use." 

GEMARA:  What  is  meant  by  "  with  intent  to  use  them," 
etc.?  Said  Rabha:  "  '  With  intent  to  use  them  '  means  to  use 
a  thing  which  was  intended  for  use  in  a  permissible  act,  whether 
it  was  needed  for  its  intended  use,  or  whether  the  room  it  occu- 
pied was  needed ;  and  '  without  such  intent  '  means  even  to  shift 
a  thing  from  the  sunshine  into  the  shade,  and  a  thing  that  was 
intended  for  use  in  a  prohibited  act  was  permitted  to  be  used 
for  its  intended  use  or  when  its  room  was  needed,  but  it  was  not 
permitted  to  move  it  from  the  sunshine  into  the  shade.  Now 
R.  Nehemiah  comes  to  say,  that  even  if  a  thing  was  intended  for 
a  permissible  act,  it  may  be  used  only  for  its  intended  use  and 
if  the  room  occupied  by  it  were  needed,  but  it  was  not  permitted 
to  shift  it  from  the  sunshine  into  the  shade. 

R.  Sapa,  R.  Aha  b.  Huna,  and  R.  Huna  bar  Hanina  were 
sitting  together.  The  latter  asked  R.  Sapa,  according  to  Rabha, 
who  explains  Nehemiah's  teaching  (that  even  a  permissible  thing 
must  not  be  removed  for  the  purpose  of  occupying  its  place): 
"  How  can  we  remove  dishes  after  eating?"  Said  R.  Sapa: 
"  It  is  equal  to  a  dirty  thing  (standing  on  a  clean  place),  which 
may  be  removed  at  any  time." 
VOL.  n.— 6 


270  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

R.  Mari  bar  Rahel  had  several  leather  bolsters  that  lay  in 
the  sun  (on  a  Sabbath).  He  came  to  Rabha  and  asked  him  if  he 
might  move  them.  Rabha  told  him  it  was  allowed.  Said  R. 
Mari  again:  "  I  have  other  bolsters  besides  these."  Answered 
Rabha:  "  This  makes  no  difference.  Thou  mightst  need  those 
too  if  guests  should  call."  Said  R.  Mari  again:  "  I  have  suf- 
ficient for  guests  also."  Said  Rabha  to  him:  "  This  proves  to 
me,  then,  that  thou  art  of  the  opinion  of  Rabba,  who  prohibits 
the  moving  of  things  from  the  sunshine  into  the  shade  on  Sab- 
bath. Hence  everybody  else  may  do  this,  but  thou  must 
not." 

Said  R.  Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Hyya  bar  Ashi,  quoting 
Rabh :  Whisks  may  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath  to  sweep  the 
tables,  but  the  brooms  made  of  date-palms  (which  are  only 
intended  for  floor-sweeping)  must  not  be  used  for  sweeping  the 
tables.     This  was  also  stated  by  R.  Elazar. 

MISHNA:  Of  all  utensils  which  may  be  handled  on  the 
Sabbath,  fragments  may  also  be  handled,  but  it  must  be  with  a 
purpose,  viz.  :  the  pieces  of  a  kneading-trough  to  cover  the 
bunghole  of  a  cask,  the  pieces  of  a  glass  to  cover  the  mouth  of 
a  pitcher.  R.  Jehudah  says:  "  They  must  be  fit  for  the  same 
use  (as  the  whole  utensil),  viz.  :  the  parts  of  a  kneading-trough 
to  hold  a  brew,  and  the  pieces  of  a  glass  to  hold  oil." 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel: 
"  The  first  Tana  of  the  Mishna  and  R.  Jehudah  differ  only  as  to 
fragments  which  were  broken  off  on  the  Sabbath ;  for  the  former 
holds  that  the  fragment  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  utensil,  and  fit 
for  the  same  use,  while  R.  Jehudah  holds,  that  the  fragment  is 
a  newly  created  thing;  but  if  the  fragments  were  broken  off 
before  the  Sabbath  set  in,  all  agree  that  they  may  be  handled : 
because  they  were  prepared  for  use  while  it  was  yet  (week)  day." 

We  have  learned,  in  one  Boraitha,  that  fire  maybe  made  with 
utensils,  but  not  with  fragments ;  and  in  another  Boraitha  we  have 
learned,  that  as  we  may  make  fire  with  utensils,  so  we  may  also 
use  fragments  for  the  same  purpose.  In  a  third  Boraitha,  how- 
ever, we  were  taught,  that  we  must  not  make  fire  with  either 
utensils  or  fragments.  We  must  say,  then,  that  the  first  Bora- 
itha is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Jehudah  (who  holds 
to  the  theory  of  "  Muktza  "  and  Noled  (a  newly  ceated  thing), 
the  second  Boraitha  is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  R. 
Simeon  (who  holds  to  neither  of  the  two  theories),  and  the  third 
Boraitha  is  in  accordance  with   R.    Nehemiah  (who  holds  that 


TRACT    SABBATH.  271 

every  utensil  must  be  used  for  its  particular  purpose  and  not  for 
other  purposes), 

R.  Na'hman  said:  "  Bricks  left  over  from  a  building  may  be 
handled,  because  they  can  be  used  as  seats;  but  if  the  bricks 
were  piled  up  one  on  top  of  the  other,  they  were  evidently  des- 
ignated for  building,  and  must  not  be  handled."  R.  Na'hman 
said  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  A  fragment  of  a  piece  of  pottery 
may  be  handled  in  private  ground,  but  not  in  unclaimed  ground 
(because  in  private  ground  other  vessels  can  generally  be  found 
and  the  fragment  may  be  used  as  a  lid  or  cover,  but  in  unclaimed 
ground  there  are  no  other  vessels  and  the  fragment  cannot  be 
used  in  that  manner);  but  R.  Na'hman  himself  declares,  that 
the  fragment  may  be  handled  in  unclaimed  ground  also  (because 
in  unclaimed  ground  there  may  also  be  some  things  which  can 
be  covered),  but  not  in  public  ground ;  and  Rabha,  however, 
says,  it  may  be  handled  even  in  public  ground  (because  having 
been  once  regarded  as  a  utensil  in  private  ground  it  remains  such 
everywhere). 

This  theory  of  Rabha's  is  borne  out  by  his  action ;  for  it 
happened  that  he  was  walking  on  the  street  Ritka  in  the  city  of 
Mehuzza  on  a  Sabbath,  when  his  shoe  became  soiled  with  dirt. 
His  servant  came  and  cleaned  it  ofif  with  a  fragment  of  a  piece  of 
pottery.  The  rabbis  who  went  behind  him  scolded  his  servant 
for  this  act,  whereupon  he  (Rabha)  remarked  :  "  It  is  not  enough 
that  they  have  not  learned  (what  is  permissible  and  what  is  not), 
but  they  also  want  to  teach  others.  If  this  fragment  were  in 
private  ground,  it  would  have  been  a  useful  article  because  a 
vessel  could  be  covered  with  it,  and  here  in  public  ground  it  is 
useful  to  me." 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel  said:  "The  bung-head 
of  a  broken  barrel  maybe  handled  on  Sabbath."  We  have  also 
learned  this  in  the  following  Boraitha:  "  The  bung-head  and  the 
pieces  of  a  broken  barrel  may  be  handled  on  Sabbath,  but  it  is 
not  allowed  to  break  off  a  piece  of  the  fragments  and  cover  a 
vessel  with  it  or  put  it  under  the  legs  of  a  bedstead."  If  the 
bung-head  and  pieces,  however,  were  thrown  away  among  the 
garbage  before  the  Sabbath,  they  must  not  be  handled  at  all, 

R,  Hamdura  said  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  "  The  waste  of  a 
mat  may  be  used  on  the  Sabbath."  Why  so  ?  For  what  pur- 
pose can  it  be  used  ?  Said  Rabha:  "  Bar  Hamdura  explained 
this  to  me  as  follows :  What  is  a  mat  used  for  ?  To  prevent  the 
dust  from  settling  upon  an  object,  and  the  waste  can  also  be  used 


272  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

for  covering  up  dirt. ' '  R.  Zera  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh :  ' '  Rem- 
nants of  silken  togas  must  not  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath." 
Said  Abayi:  "This  is  said  of  remnants  that  measure  less  than 
three  fingers  square  and  are  of  no  value  to  either  rich  or  poor." 

The  rabbis  taught :  Fragments  of  an  old  oven  are  equal  to 
any  other  vessels  that  may  be  handled  on  Sabbath.  So  said  R, 
Meir;  but  R.  Jehudah  said  they  may  not  be  handled,  R. 
Jose  testified  in  the  name  of  R.  Eliezer  ben  Jacob,  that  frag- 
ments of  an  oven  may  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath  and  the  cov- 
ers of  an  oven  may  be  handled  even  if  their  handles  are  broken 
off.  Said  Rabhina:  "  According  to  whose  opinion  do  we  handle 
to-day  the  covers  of  the  ovens  used  in  the  city  of  Mahassia, 
which  have  no  handles  ?  It  must  be  according  to  the  opinion  of 
R.  Eliezer  ben  Jacob." 

MISHNA:  One  may  dip  water  with  a  hollow  pumpkin  to 
which  a  stone  is  fastened,  providing  the  stone  will  not  fall  off; 
otherwise,  one  must  not  dip  water  with  it.  One  may  dip  water 
with  a  jug  to  which  a  vine  branch  is  fastened. 

"  For  a  window-blind,"  says  R.  Eliezer,  "  a  thing  may  only 
then  be  put  up,  if  it  be  fastened  and  hang  down ;  otherwise,  it 
must  not."     The  sages  say  it  may  be  put  up  in  any  manner. 

GEMARA:  We  have  learned  in  another  Mishna:  "If  a 
stone  lie  at  the  opening  of  a  barrel,  the  barrel  may  be  bent 
over,  so  that  the  stone  fall  down."  Said  Rabba  in  the  name  of 
R.  Ami,  quoting  R.  Johanan:  "The  case  applies  only  when 
the  stone  lying  at  the  opening  of  the  barrel  was  left  there  unin- 
tentionally; but  if  placed  there  on  purpose,  the  barrel  becomes 
a  base  for  a  prohibited  thing  (and  must  not  be  moved)."  R. 
Joseph  in  the  name  of  R.  Assi,  quoting  R.  Johanan,  said,  on 
the  contrary:  "  If  the  stone  was  left  there  unintentionally  the 
barrel  must  be  bent  over,  so  that  the  stone  fall  down ;  but  if 
placed  there  intentionally,  it  serves  as  a  lid  to  the  barrel,  and 
maybe  removed."  On  what  points  do  R.  Ami  and  R.  Assi 
differ  ?  One  holds,  that  an  act  must  be  accomplished  in  order  to 
be  an  act,  while  the  other  holds  the  intention  to  be  equivalent  to 
the  deed,  and  their  respective  theories  are  borne  out  by  their 
opinions  which  follow: 

For  when  R.  Dimi,  and  according  to  others  R.  Zera,  came 
from  Palestine,  he  related  in  the  name  of  R.  Hanina:  It  hap- 
pened that  Rabbi  once  went  to  a  certain  place  on  a  Friday,  and 
finding  a  pile  of  stones  said  to  his  disciples:  "  Go  and  have  it  in 
your  minds  that  we  intend  to  sit  on  these  to-morrow."      Thus 


TRACT   SABBATH.  273 

Rabbi  did  not  order  them  to  act,  but  merely  to  think.  R. 
Johanan,  however,  said,  that  Rabbi  ordered  his  disciples  to  act. 
And  what,  according  to  R.  Johanan's  opinion,  were  the  disciples 
to  do  ?  R.  Ami  said,  that  Rabbi  ordered  them  to  place  the 
stones  in  position  for  them  to  sit  on,  but  R.  Assi  said,  that 
Rabbi  ordered  them  not  only  to  place  the  stones  in  position,  but 
also  to  clean  them  (because,  in  the  latter's  opinion,  changing  the 
position  of  an  object  does  not  constitute  an  actual  deed). 

It  was  taught:  R.  Jose  b.  Saul  said  it  was  not  stones  but  a 
pile  of  building  wood.  R.  Johanan  b.  Saul,  however,  said  it 
was  not  building  wood  but  poles  with  which  the  depth  of  the 
water  is  sounded. 

One  may  dip  water  with  a  hollow  puvipkiyi  to  which  a  vine- 
branch  is  fastened^  If  it  is  fastened  one  may,  and  if  not,  one 
may  not.  Shall  we  assume  that  our  Mishna  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel?  as  we  have  learned 
in  a  Boraitha:  Branches  of  a  tree  which  were  intended  for  kind- 
ling, if  subsequently  used  for  sitting  purposes,  must  be  tied 
together,  but  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  said,  they  need  not  be 
tied  together.*  Said  R.  Ashi :  It  may  be  said,  that  this  Mishna 
is  not  at  variance  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel, 
but  is  merely  a  precautionary  measure,  for  fear  that  a  branch, 
being  brittle,  might  be  broken  by  the  man  if  not  tied  together. 

''For  a  window-blind,''  etc.  Rabba  bar  bar  Hana  in  the 
name  of  R.  Johanan  said :  All  agree  that  it  is  not  permitted  to 
put  up  even  a  temporary  tent  t  to  begin  with  on  a  biblical  festi- 
val, and  decidedly  not  on  the  Sabbath,  but  as  for  adding  (that 
is,  if  part  of  the  blind  was  already  up)  a  blind  to  a  temporary 
tent  that  had  already  been  put  up,  R.  Eliezer  said,  that  it  is  not 
permissible  on  a  festival  and  much  less  so  on  the  Sabbath,  and 
the  sages  declare,  that  it  is  permitted  on  the  Sabbath  and  so 
much  the  more  on  a  festival. 

The  sages  say  it  may  be  put  up  in  any  manner. ' '  What  is 
meant  by  "  in  any  manner  "  ?  Said  R.  Aba  in  the  name  of  R. 
Kahana :  "  By  that  is  meant,  that  it  makes  no  difference  whether 
the  blind  was  fastened  or  not,  providing  it  was  prepared  for  its 
purpose  since   the  day  before."      Said    R.    Jeremiah    to    him: 

Compare  page  90,  in  this  tract. 

f  By  a  temporary  tent,  says  Rashi,  is  meant  principally  a  sheet  put  up  on  four 
poles  to  serve  as  a  roof,  but  screens  on  the  sides  are  not  considered  a  tent.  The 
putting  up  of  a  window-blind  in  a  building,  however,  is  regarded  by  K.  Eliezer  as  an 
addition  to  the  building. 


274  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

"  Why  wouldst  thou  assume  that  the  sages  would  be  more 
lenient  in  this  matter  ?  Say  rather  that  they  meant  to  state, 
that  it  made  no  difference  whether  the  blind  hung  down  or  not, 
providing  it  had  been  previously  fastened."  R.  Aba  answered: 
"  Because  I  hold  with  the  Tana  of  the  following  Tosephta:  A 
stick,  prepared  by  the  master  of  a  house  for  the  opening  and 
locking  of  a  door,  may  be  used  on  Sabbath,  providing  it  was 
fastened  and  hung  to  the  door;  otherwise,  it  must  not  be  used. 
R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel,  however,  declared,  that  as  long  as  it 
was  prepared  for  that  purpose,  it  was  of  no  consequence  whether 
it  was  fastened  and  hung  to  the  door."  (Thus  it  may  be  seen 
that  R.  Aba  held  with  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel.) 

R.  Jehudah  bar  Silas  in  the  name  of  R.  Assi,  quoting  R. 
Johanan,  said:  "The  Halakha  according  to  R.  Simeon  ben 
Gamaliel  prevails."  Did  R.  Johanan  say  this  in  reality  ?  Have 
we  not  learned  in  a  Mishna,  that  all  covers  of  vessels  having 
handles  attached  may  be  handled  on  Sabbath?  Referring  to  this, 
R.  Jehudah  b.  Shila  in  the  name  of  R.  Assi,  quoting  R.  Johanan, 
said,  that  such  would  be  the  case  only  if  the  covers  could  be 
made  use  of  as  independent  vessels.  (How,  then,  can  R. 
Johanan  hold  with  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel,  who  says,  that  the 
stick  which  was  not  fastened  to  the  door  may  be  used  on  Sab- 
bath, surely  it  is  not  an  independent  vessel  ?)  Shall  we  assume, 
that  R.  Johanan  holds  with  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  only  in  the 
case  where  the  stick  could  also  be  used  for  other  purposes  and 
thus  could  be  called  an  independent  vessel?  Then  how  can  it  be 
said  that  R.  Johanan  holds  with  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel,  for 
the  latter  does  not  require  the  stick  to  be  an  independent  vessel, 
as  we  have  learned  above  in  the  matter  of  the  branches  (see 
page  273),  where  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  declares,  that  they 
need  not  be  tied  together?  R.  Johanan  is  in  accordance  with 
him  only  in  the  matter  of  the  stick  being  prepared  for  its  par- 
ticular purpose  without  being  fastened  to  the  door,  but  disa- 
grees with  him  as  regards  an  independent  vessel. 

R.  Itz'hak  of  Naph'ha*  proclaimed  at  the  door  of  the 
Exil^arch's  house,  that  the  Halakha  according  to  R.  Eliczer  pre- 
vailed. R.  Amram  raised  an  objection:  "  We  have  learned  in 
the  last  Mishna  of  this  Tract  as  follows :  '  Thence  we  learn  that 
it  is  permitted  to  put  up  a  window-blind,  to  measure  and  to  tie 
on  the  Sabbath.'  "     (How,  then,  could  R.  Itz'hak  say,  that  the 

*  See  note  to  page  96,  in  this  tract. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  275 

Halakha  according  to  R.  Eliczcr  prevailed  ?)  Said  Abayi  to 
him  :  Upon  what  is  thy  objection  concerning  R.  Itz'hak  based  ? 
The  Mishna  just  mentioned  gives  the  opinion  of  the  sages  only, 
who  are  at  variance  with  R.  Eliezcr  in  our  Mishna,  and  thou 
mightst  say,  that  because  no  contention  is  mentioned,  the 
Ilalakha  according  to  the  sages  prevails;  then  thou  knowest  of 
another  Mishna  (in  Erubin),  concerning  the  hinge'of  a  cupboard 
door,  no  name  is  mentioned,  and  still  the  Mishna  appears  to  be 
in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Eliezer  only  (thus  R. 
Itz'hak  can  accept  R.  Eliezer's  opinion).  Saith  the  Gemara: 
(Although  Abayi  justified  R.  Itz'hak)  an  act  of  the  sages  (as  is 
related  in  the  last-mentioned  Mishna)  is  sufficiently  decisive  to 
establish  the  Halakha. 

MISHNA:  All  lids  of  utensils  maybe  removed  (on  the  Sab- 
bath), provided  they  have  handles.  Said  R.  Jose:  What  does 
this  apply  to  ?  To  lids  of  vessels  fastened  in  the  ground,  but 
lids  of  vessels  in  general  may  be  removed  at  all  events. 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Jehudah  bar  Shila  in  the  name  of 
R.  Assi,  quoting  R.  Johanan :  "  The  lids  of  utensils  may  be 
handled  only  if  they  can  be  made  use  of  for  other  purposes  as 
independent  vessels."  Saith  the  Gemara:  "All  agree,  that  cov- 
ers of  utensils  (fixtures)  fixed  in  the  ground  must  be  handled 
only  if  they  have  handles  attached,  and  lids  of  other  utensils  not 
fixed  in  the  ground  may  be  handled  even  if  they  have  no 
handles,  but  the  point  of  the  divergent  opinions  is  as  regards 
the  covers  of  ovens,  the  one  side  contending,  that  ovens  must 
be  regarded  as  fixtures  in  the  ground  and  the  other  side  con- 
tending that  they  are  ordinary  utensils." 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

REGULATIONS  REGARDING  THE  CLEARING  OFF  OF  REQUIRED  SPACE, 
THE  ASSISTANCE  TO  BE  GIVEN  CATTLE  WHEN  GIVING  BIRTH  TO 
THEIR    YOUNG    AND    TO    WOMEN    ABOUT    TO    BE    CONFINED. 

MISHNA:  One  may  even  clear  off  four  or  five  chests  of 
straw  or  grain,  in  order  to  provide  room  for  guests,  and  to 
remove  obstacles  to  instruction ;  but  one  must  not  clear  out  a 
whole  barn.  Further,  one  may  clear  off:  heave-offerings,  grain 
(of  which  it  is  not  certain  that  the  tithes  have  been  set  apart), 
first  tithes  of  which  the  heave-offering  has  been  taken  off,  sec- 
ond tithes  and  consecrated  things  which  have  been  redeemed, 
and  dried  broad-beans,  which  serve  the  poor  (others  say,  the 
goats)  for  food.  But  one  must  not  clear  off  mixed  grain  (of 
which  tithes  have  not  yet  been  separated),  nor  first  tithes  of 
which  the  heave-offering  had  not  yet  been  taken  off,  nor  second 
tithes  nor  consecrated  things  which  had  not  yet  been  redeemed, 
nor  arum  (wake-robin)  nor  mustard.  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel 
permits  arum  (wake-robin)  to  be  cleared  off,  because  it  serves 
the  (house)  raven  for  food. 

Bundles  of  straw,  bundles  of  stalks,  and  bundles  of  reeds 
may  be  handled,  provided  they  are  designed  for  cattle-fodder, 
otherwise  they  must  not  be  handled. 

GEMARA:  The  Mishna  says,  "  four  or  five  chests."  Why 
say  four  or  five  ?  If  five  may  be  cleared  off,  surely  four  may! 
Said  Samuel:  This  is  said  only  as  a  customary  saying;  but  in 
reality  it  means  to  say  that  any  number  may  be  cleared  off;  but 
by  saying  "  one  must  not  clear  off  a  whole  barn,"  the  Mishna 
means  to  state,  that  all  the  straw  should  not  be  removed  for  fear 
lest  pits  be  noticed  in  the  ground,  and  the  man  might  fill  them 
up.  Even  if  the  whole  barn  be  full  and  as  yet  untouched,  one 
may  commence  to  remove  as  much  as  is  necessary,  and  the 
Mishna  is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon,  who 
disregards  the  law  of  Muktza. 

The  rabbis  taught:  One  may  not  commence  on  a  full  barn, 
but   one   may  remove   enough,  when   entering,  with  his  feet,  to 

276 


TRy\CT   SABBATH.  277 

provide  an  entrance,  and  when  going  6ut  to  make  a  way  of 
egress. 

The  rabbis  taught:  A  sheaf  of  grain,  if  commenced  prior  to 
the  Sabbatli,  may  be  used  on  the  Sabbath;  but  if  not,  it  must 
not  be  used  on  Sabbath,  so  saith  R.  A'ha,  but  R.  Simeon  permits 
this  to  be  done.  How  large  should  the  sheaf  be  ?  We  have 
learned  in  a  Boraitha  that  it  should  measure  one  Lethach.* 

The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question  (not  having  heard 
Samuel's  explanation):  "  How  is  the  term  '  four  or  five  chests' 
to  be  understood  ?  Should  a  man  clear  off  only  four  or  five 
chests,  even  if  that  be  not  room  enough  for  his  guests;  or  should 
he  do  so  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  his  guests  ?  If  according 
to  the  number  of  his  guests,  does  it  mean  to  say,  that  one  man 
should  clear  ofT  suflficient  for  all,  or  every  man  for  himself?" 
Come  and  hear:  Rabba  told  in  the  name  of  R.  Hyya:  It  once 
happened  that  Rabbi  went  out  on  a  Sabbath  to  a  certain  place, 
and  saw  that  the  place  assigned  to  him  for  lecturing  was  too 
small;  so  he  went  out  into  the  field,  and  found  the  whole  field 
full  of  sheaves.  He  cleared  off  the  field,  and  provided  sufficient 
room."  Thence  we  see  that  he  did  so  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  his  guests;  but  this  narration  decides  only  one  part 
of  the  schoolmen's  question,  viz.  :  the  one  relating  to  the  num- 
ber of  sheaves  to  be  cleared  ofT,  but  not  the  one  relating  to 
whether  one  man  may  clear  off  sufiRcient  for  all,  or  every  man 
for  himself.  Come  and  hear:  "  Rabbi  cleared  off  the  field,"  etc. 
(that  is,  one  man  for  all).  And  what  think  you,  that  Rabbi  did 
this  himself  ?  he  certainly  must  have  ordered  this  to  be  done,  so  it 
is  not  known  whether  one  man  did  it,  or  each  man  for  himself. 

"  For  guests,"  etc.  R.  Johanan  said:  "  The  reward  for  hos- 
pitality is  equal  to  that  for  visiting  the  house  of  learning,  for 
the  Mishna  saith  for  guests  and  for  obstacles  to  instruction,  thus 
putting  the  two  causes  on  a  par."  Said  R.  Dimi:  "  Hospital- 
ity is  even  a  greater  virtue,  for  it  is  given  the  precedence  over 
instruction." 

R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh :  Hospitality  is  even 
a  greater  merit  than  receiving  the  Shekhina,  as  it  is  written 
[Genesis  xviii.  3] :  "  And  he  said,  My  Lord,  if  now  I  have  found 
favor  in  thy  eyes,  pass  not  away,"  etc.  (showing  that  Abraham 
let  the  Lord  wait  while  ho  went  to  receive  his  guests).  Said 
R.  Elazar:   Come  and  see  how  the  custom  of  the   Holy  One, 

♦A  measure  of  grain  spoken  of  in  Hosea  iii.  2,  and  presumably  a  half  of  a  Kur. 


278  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

blessed  be  He,  is  unlike  that  of  human  beings.  An  insignificant 
man  cannot  say  to  a  great  man:  "  Stay  here  until  I  come  back 
again,"  whereas  to  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  Abraham  said 
as  mentioned  above. 

Said  R.  Jehudah  bar  Shila  in  the  name  of  R.  Assi,  quoting 
R.  Johanan  :  "  There  are  six  things,  the  interest  on  which  a  man 
consumes  on  earth,  while  the  principal  is  given  him  in  the  world 
to  come.  They  are :  Hospitality,  visiting  the  sick,  contempla- 
tion before  prayer,  attending  the  house  of  learning,  educating 
children  in  the  Law,  and  charity  in  judging  others."  Is  this  so  ? 
Have  we  not  learned  in  a  Mishna  :  These  are  the  things  the  inter- 
est of  which  a  man  consumes  on  earth  and  the  principal  of 
which  is  given  him  in  the  world  to  come  ?  "  Honoring  father 
and  mother,  doing  favors  to  neighbors,  peace-making  among 
men,  and,  above  all,  the  study  of  the  Law."  Now,  if  the  Mishna 
says  "these  are  the  things,"  it  means  no  others!  Nay;  the 
six  things  previously  mentioned  are  included  in  those  subse- 
quently enumerated  (hospitality  and  visiting  the  sick  are  included 
in  doing  favors  to  neighbors ;  contemplation  before  prayer  is  a 
favor  to  one's  self,  as  it  is  written  [Proverbs  xi.  17]  :  "  The  man 
of  kindness  doth  good  to  his  own  soul  "  ;  attending  the  house  of 
learning  and  educating  children  in  the  Law  is  included  in  the 
study  of  the  Law;  charity  in  judging  others  is  included  in  peace- 
making among  men,  and  R.  Johanan  does  not  dispute  the 
Mishna,  but  merely  expounds  it). 

The  rabbis  taught:  One  who  exercises  charity  in  judging 
others  is  charitably  dealt  with  when  judged  above.  It  once 
happened  that  a  man  came  from  upper  Galilee  and  hired  out  to 
a  master  in  southern  Palestine  for  three  years.  On  the  last  eve 
of  the  Day  of  Atonement  (when  his  term  was  up)  he  asked  his 
master  for  his  wages,  so  that  he  could  return  to  his  wife  and 
children.  The  master  replied  that  he  had  no  money.  Said  the 
man:  "  Then  give  me  my  money's  worth  in  grain."  And  the 
master  answered:  "I  have  it  not."  Said  the  man  again: 
"  Give  me  my  money's  worth  in  land,"  and  again  the  master 
replied:  "  I  have  it  not."  "  Then  give  me  my  money's  worth 
in  cattle."  "  I  have  it  not,"  was  the  reply.  "  I  will  take  my 
money's  worth  in  bolsters  or  bed-clothes,"  pleaded  the  man, 
but  the  answer  was  still  the  same.  The  poor  man  shouldered 
his  bundle  and  sorrowfully  went  away.  After  the  holidays  the 
master  took  the  hired  man's  wages  and,  besides,  three  asses;  one 
laden  with  victuals,  the  second  with  beverages,  and   the  third 


TRACT   SABBATH.  279 

with  spices,  and  went  to  his  hired  man's  house  in  Gahlcc. 
After  having  partaken  of  a  meal  together,  the  master  paid  him 
his  wages,  and  asked  him:  "  When  I  told  thee  that  I  had  not 
the  money  to  pay  thee  thy  wages,  what  didst  thou  suspect  me 
of  ? "  The  man  answered :  "  I  thought  that  perhaps  thou  hadst 
come  across  a  bargain  and  hadst  paid  out  all  thy  ready  money." 
"  And  when  thou  askedst  me  for  cattle  and  I  refused  thee,  what 
didst  thou  think  then  ? "  "I  thought  that  thou  hadst  hired  out 
thy  cattle  on  some  other  farm,  and  thou  couldst  not  give  me  any 
at  the  time."  "  And  when  thou  askedst  me  for  grain  and  I 
refused?"  "  I  thought  perhaps  thou  hadst  not  yet  paid  thy 
tithes  and  hence  thou  couldst  not  give  me  any."  "  And  when 
I  refused  thee  land  ?"  "I  thought  perhaps  thou  hadst  rented 
it  out."  "  And  when  I  refused  thee  bed-clothes  ? "  "  Then  I 
thought  that  thou  hadst  devoted  all  thy  possessions  in  honor  of 
the  Lord."  "  I  swear  to  thee,  then,  that  such  was  really  the 
case.  I  had  made  a  vow  to  give  away  all  my  possessions  for 
charitable  purposes,  because  my  son  Hurkenes'did  not  want  to 
study  the  Law.  Afterwards,  when  I  came  to  my  comrades  in 
the  South  they  released  me  from  my  vow,  and  as  thou  didst 
judge  me  in  kindness,  so  may  God  judge  thee  in  kindness." 

The  rabbis  taught :  A  pious  man  once  ransomed  a  Jewish 
maiden  from  captivity.  When  they  came  to  a  lodging-place  at 
night,  he  laid  her  down  at  his  feet.  On  the  morrow  he  bathed, 
and  then  went  out  to  teach  his  disciples.  During  the  lesson,  he 
asked  his  disciples:  "  When  I  laid  the  damsel  down  at  my  feet 
last  night,  what  did  you  suspect  me  of  ?  "  And  they  answered : 
Perhaps  there  may  be  one  among  us  who  has  not  yet  been 
tried  and  thou  couldst  not  trust  him,  so  thou  laidst  her  near 
thee."  "  And  when  I  went  in  the  morning  and  bathed,  what  did 
you  suspect  ?"  "  Perhaps,  on  account  of  the  hardships  on  the 
way,  thy  seed  of  copulation  ran  out  from  thee  and  thou  wert 
compelled  to  bathe."  "  By  the  Lord,"  said  the  master,  "  so  it 
was;  and  as  ye  have  judged  me  in  kindness,  so  may  the  Lord 
judge  you  in  kindness." 

The  rabbis  taught :  It  happened  that  the  sages  had  business 
with  a  Roman  matron  to  whom  all  the  great  men  of  Rome  came 
for  advice,  and  they  could  not  decide  who  should  go  to  her. 
Finally  R.  Jehoshua  volunteered  to  go,  and  so  he  and  his  disci- 
ples went  to  her.  Four  ells  from  the  door  of  her  house,  R. 
Jehoshua  removed  his  phylacteries  and  went  in,  locking  the  door 
behind  him.      When  he  came  back  he  bathed,  and  then  went 


28o  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

back  and  taught  his  disciples.  During  the  lesson  he  asked: 
"When  I  removed  my  phylacteries,  what  did  ye  suspect?" 
And  they  answered:  "  The  phylacteries  are  holy,  and  thou  didst 
not  wish  to  bring  them  into  a  profane  place."  "  And  when  I 
locked  the  door  behind  me,  what  did  ye  suspect?"  "We 
thought  perhaps  thou  hadst  a  secret  political  affair  to  transact 
and  didst  not  wish  us  to  enter."  "  And  when  I  came  out  and 
bathed,  what  did  you  suspect?"  And  they  replied:  "We 
thought  perhaps  some  of  the  matron's  spittle  had  accidentally 
dropped  on  thy  garments  and  thou  hadst  to  bathe."  "  By  the 
Lord,"  said  R.  Jehoshua,  "so  it  happened;  and  as  ye  judged 
me  in  kindness,  so  may  the  Lord  also  judge  you  in  kindness." 

"  Further,  one  may  clear  off  heave-offerings,''  etc.  Is  this  not 
self-evident  ?  It  might  be  assumed  that  the  heave-offerings 
being  in  possession  of  a  plebeian  who  is  not  allowed  to  partake 
of  them,  they  must  not  be  handled;  but  the  Mishna  comes  to 
teach  us,  that  because  a  priest  is  allowed  to  eat  them,  they  may 
be  handled  by  everybody.* 

''And  dried  broad-beans.''  The  rabbis  taught:  Hatzav  (a 
certain  plant  the  roots  of  which  grow  deep  into  the  ground  but 
do  not  spread)  may  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath,  because  it  is 
food  for  deer.  Mustard  may  be  handled,  because  it  is  food  for 
doves.  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  said  that  pieces  of  glass  may 
be  handled,  because  ostriches  eat  them.  Said  R.  Nathan:  "  In 
this  case  twigs  may  be  handled,  because  they  serve  elephants  for 
food."  What  did  R.  Simeon  answer  R.  Nathan?  Ostriches 
are  more  frequently  owned  by  men  than  elephants.  Said 
Ameimar:  "  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  means  to  say,  that  only 
one  who  possesses  ostriches  may  handle  pieces  of  glass  ?  "  Said 
R.  Ashi  to  Ameimar:  "  If  this  is  so,  what  did  R.  Nathan  ques- 
tion ?  If  one  possesses  elephants,  he  may  surely  handle  twigs. 
So  R.  Nathan  means  to  say,  that  because  twigs  serve  as  food  for 
elephants,  anybody  may  handle  them ;  and  the  same  applies  to 
pieces  of  glass,  because  they  serve  ostriches  for  food,  everybody 
may  handle  them  (on  the  Sabbath)." 

"  Bundles  of  straw,"  etc.  The  rabbis  taught:  "  Bundles  of 
straw,  bundles  of  stalks,  and  bundles  of  reeds  may  be  handled, 
provided  they  are  designed  for  cattle-fodder;  otherwise,  they 
must  not  be  handled."     R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  said:  "  If  the 

*  The  discussions  concerning  the  mixed  grain  and  all  the  other  subjects  enumer- 
ated in  the  above  Mishna  appear  again  in  Tract  Berachoth,  where  we  shall  render 
them  in  the  course  of  our  work. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  281 

bundles  can  be  lifted  with  one  hand  they  may  be  handled,  but  if 
not  they  must  not  be  handled." 

Bundles  of  satureia,  abrotanum,  and  thyme,  if  prepared  for 
fuel,  must  not  be  used  on  Sabbath,  but  if  prepared  for  cattle- 
food  may  be  used.  Grain  from  an  ear  (of  wheat,  etc.)  may  be 
taken  by  hand  only,  but  not  with  a  vessel.  One  may  even  take 
a  few  grains  from  growing  ears  with  his  fingers,  and  eat  them,  but 
must  not  take  them  with  a  vessel,  so  saith  R.  Jehudah ;  but  the 
sages  say,  that  one  may  do  this  with  his  fingers,  but  not  with 
both  hands,  as  usually  done  on  week-days.  The  same  ordinance 
holds  good  for  any  other  spices. 

It  was  taught :  Salt  meat  may  be  handled  on  Sabbath,  but 
fresh  meat  must  not  be  handled,  according  to  R.  Hisda;  but 
R.  Huna  permits  this. 

The  rabbis  taught :  Salt  fish  may  be  handled,  but  not  stale 
unsalted  fish,  and  meat  may  be  handled,  be  it  fresh  or  salt. 

The  rabbis  taught :  Bones  may  be  handled,  because  dogs  eat 
them;  putrid  meat  may  be  handled,  because  beasts  of  prey  eat 
it.  Uncovered  water*  may  be  handled,  because  cats  drink  it. 
R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel,  however,  said,  that  all  these  things 
should  not  be  kept  in  the  house  even  on  week-days,  because  they 
are  dangerous. 

MISHNA:  One  may  set  a  basket  on  end  for  chickens,  in 
order  that  they  may  climb  up  or  down  upon  it.  A  runaway  hen 
may  be  chased  until  she  goes  back  again.  One  may  lead  about 
calves  or  young  asses  to  exercise  them.  A  woman  may  lead  her 
son  about  to  give  him  exercise.  R.  Jehudah  says:  "When 
(may  she  do)  this  ?  If  the  child  lifts  one  foot  and  sets  down  the 
other;  but  if  it  trails  (its  leg)  behind,  she  must  not." 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh :  "  If  a 
cow  fall  into  a  lake,  it  is  allowed  to  throw  into  the  lake  bolsters, 
bundles,  vessels,  etc.,  in  order  to  give  the  cow  a  foothold  and 
enable  her  to  get  out."  An  objection  was  made:  We  have 
learned  in  a  Boraitha:  "  If  a  cow  fall  into  a  lake,  food  may  be 
brought  to  her  in  order  that  she  may  not  starve  to  death."  So 
it  refers  only  to  food,  but  nothing  is  said  in  reference  to  bolsters, 
etc.  This  presents  no  difficulty.  Where  food  can  be  brought 
it  may  be  done,  but  when  the  cow  cannot  be  reached,  bolsters, 
etc.,  may  be  brought.     But  a  vessel  that  is  prepared  for  other 


*  Water  was  never  kept  uncovered   in  the  Orient  for  fear  of  snakes,  and  any 
water  that  was  found  uncovered  was  immcdiutfly  tlirown  out. 


282  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

purposes  is  thereby  destroyed  ?  That  is  simply  a  rabbinical 
ordinance,  but  pity  for  creatures  is  a  Mosaic  law  and  has  prece- 
dence. 

"A  runaway  hen  may  be  chased,''  etc.  The  hen  may  be 
chased,  but  not  led.  This  is  a  similar  teaching  to  that  of  an- 
other Boraitha,  wherein  we  have  learned,  that  all  animals  and 
birds  may  be  led  about  in  private  ground  with  the  exception  of 
a  hen.  Why  not  a  hen.  Said  Abayi :  "  Because  a  hen,  when 
led,  will  not  walk,  but  will  jump  and  fly,  and  the  man  leading 
her  will  be  forced  to  carry  her." 

MISHNA:  On  a  feast-day  one  must  not  deliver  cattle, 
about  to  give  birth,  of  their  young,  but  may  be  of  assistance  to 
them  in  any  other  manner.  One  may  give  a  woman  (about  to 
give  birth  to  a  child)  all  assistance  possible,  even  call  a  midwife 
from  a  distance ;  one  may  violate  the  Sabbath  on  her  account  and 
tie  the  navel-string.  R.  Jose  says :  One  may  also  cut  the  string. 
Lastly,  one  may  accomplish  anything  necessary  for  the  circum- 
cision on  the  Sabbath. 

GEMARA :  What  is  meant  by  "  being  of  assistance  "  ?  Said 
R.  Jehudah :  "  To  hold  up  the  young,  that  it  may  not  fall,"  and 
R.  Na'hman  said:  "To  pull  out  the  young  by  pressing  the 
sides."  R.  Jehudah's  explanation  is  supported  by  the  following 
Boraitha:  "  How  is  an  animal  assisted  in  giving  birth  to  her 
young  ?  By  holding  up  the  young,  blowing  air  into  its  nos- 
trils, and  leading  it  to  its  mother's  breast,  so  that  it  may  suck." 

R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  said:  "  When  a  clean  animal  (one 
that  may  be  eaten)  gave  birth  to  her  young  on  a  festival  and 
would  not  take  to  it,  we  would  coerce  her  into  taking  to  her  off- 
spring."  How  would  this  be  done?  Said  Abayi:  "They 
would  bring  a  handful  of  salt,  lay  it  in  the  mother's  womb,  and 
the  pain  that  would  be  caused  thereby  would  remind  the  mother 
of  her  young,  and  she  would  immediately  take  to  them,  and 
they  would  pour  the  water  discharged  by  the  mother  on  the 
young,  so  that  the  mother  would  scent  it  and  seek  her  young. 
This  was  done,  however,  only  with  a  clean  animal,  but  not  with 
an  unclean  animal.  Why  so  ?  Because  usually  an  unclean  ani- 
mal will  not  cast  off  her  young,  and  should  she  do  so,  she  will 
never  take  to  them  again." 

One  may  give  a  woman  {about  to  give  birth  to  a  child)  all 
assistance  possible."  Let  us  see!  The  Mishna  says,  that  one 
may  call  a  midwife  even  from  a  distance,  and  then,  that  one 
may  violate  the  Sabbath  on  her  account.      What  is  the  object  in 


TRACT    SABBATH.  283 

particularizin*^  what  may  be  done  ?  The  Mishna  means  to  tell 
us,  what  the  rabbis  taught,  viz.:  "  If  a  woman  lying  in  is  in 
need  of  a  light,  another  woman  may  light  a  candle  for  her;  and 
if  she  needs  oil,  the  waitress  may  bring  her  oil  through  public 
ground  in  her  hands;  should  that  not  be  sufficient  she  may  bring 
it  in  her  hair,  and  if  that  does  not  suffice  she  may  bring  it  in  a 
vessel." 

The  master  said:  "If  a  woman  lying  in  is  in  need  of  a 
candle,  another  woman  may  light  it  for  her."  Is  this  not  self- 
evident  ?  He  means  to  tell  us,  that  even  if  the  woman  lying  in 
be  blind,  and  one  might  say,  that  being  blind  she  needs  no 
candle,  hence  it  should  not  be  lit;  the  candle  should  be  lit  for 
her  at  all  events,  for  she  may  need  a  thing  that  others  could  not 
see  without  a  light,  while,  by  aid  of  the  light,  they  would  find 
it  and  hand  it  to  her. 

Further,  it  says,  that  a  woman  may  bring  her  oil  in  her  hair. 
This  would  be  worse  still,  for  the  hair  would  have  to  be  wrung, 
and  that  would  make  the  woman  (who  brought  the  oil)  guilty  of 
wringing  (on  Sabbath).  Rabba  and  R.  Joseph  both  said,  that 
wringing  hair  does  not  constitute  wringing  within  the  meaning 
of  the  law.  R.  Ashi  said:  "  Even  if  wringing  the  hair  would 
constitute  wringing  within  the  meaning  of  the  law,  the  woman 
should  bring  the  oil  in  a  vessel  which  should  be  placed  on  the 
hair  (head) ;  for  any  work  which  must  of  a  necessity  be  performed 
on  a  Sabbath,  should  be  performed  in  as  far  different  a  manner 
from  that  done  on  a  week-day  as  possible." 

R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  "As  long  as  the 
womb  of  a  woman  lying  in  is  still  open,  whether  she  says  she 
must  have  it  done  or  not,  the  Sabbath  may  be  violated  for 
her.  As  soon,  however,  as  the  womb  is  closed,  the  Sabbath 
may  be  violated  only  if  she  says  she  must  have  it  done;  other- 
wise, it  must  not  be  violated,  so  taught  Mar  Zutra. "  R.  Ashi, 
however,  taught  in  the  name  of  the  preceding  authority,  that  as 
soon  as  the  womb  is  closed,  even  if  the  woman  says  she  must 
have  it  done,  the  Sabbath  must  not  be  violated  on  her  account. 

Said  Rabhina  to  Mareimar:  "  Mar  Zutra  is  more  lenient  in 
his  teaching,  and  R.  Ashi  the  stricter;  according  to  whom  does 
the  Halakha  prevail?"  Answered  Mareimar:  "The  Halakha 
according  to  Mar  Zutra  prevails,  for  it  is  the  general  rule,  that 
wherever  human  lives  are  concerned,  the  more  lenient  teaching 
is  always  accepted  as  final." 

At  what  time  is  the  womb  considered  to  be  open  ?     Abayi 


284  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

said:  "From  the  time  the  woman  commences  to  give  birth." 
R.  Huna  the  son  of  R.  Jehoshua  said:  "  From  the  time  blood 
commences  to  flow  "  ;  and  others  say,  from  the  time  that  she 
becomes  helpless  and  her  attendants  lay  her  on  the  bed. 

How  long  is  the  womb  considered  to  be  open  ?  Abayi  said, 
for  three  days  after  birth,  and  Rabha  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehu- 
dah  said,  for  seven  days,  and  others  say  for  thirty  days.  The 
scholars  of  Neherdai  divide  the  time  of  a  woman  lying  in  into 
three  periods  of  three,  seven,  and  thirty  days  each.  During 
the  first  period,  whether  the  woman  says  she  must  have  it  done 
or  whether  she  says  it  need  not  be  done,  the  Sabbath  may  be 
violated  for  her.  During  the  second  period,  if  she  says  it  must 
be  done,  the  Sabbath  may  be  violated ;  but  if  she  says  it  need 
not  be  done,  it  must  not  be  violated  ;  and  during  the  third  period, 
even  if  she  says  she  must  have  it  done,  the  Sabbath  must  not 
be  violated  by  Israelites,  but  it  may  be  done  by  Gentiles.  This 
is  according  to  R.  Ula  the  son  of  R.  Ilai,  who  says,  that  every- 
thing which  must  be  done  for  a  sick  person  on  the  Sabbath 
should  be  done  by  Gentiles,  and  also  according  to  R.  Hamnuna, 
who  said,  that  all  things  which  are  to  be  done  for  a  person  who 
is  not  dangerously  ill,  should  be  ordered  done  by  a  Gentile.  As 
it  happened  with  the  daughter  of  R.  Hisda  (the  wife  of  Rabba), 
who  took  a  bath  in  her  husband's  absence,  before  the  thirty 
days  were  up,  and  caught  cold,  and  friends  were  compelled  to 
bring  her,  still  lying  in  bed,  to  Rabba  in  Pumbaditha. 

Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  "  A  woman  lying 
in  should  be  given  thirty  days."  For  what  law  should  she  be 
given  thirty  days  ?  The  men  of  Neherdai  said,  for  bathing 
(that  is,  she  should  not  bathe  for  thirty  days,  in  order  that  she 
may  not  catch  cold).  Said  Rabha :  This  rule  applies  to  women 
whose  husbands  are  not  at  home,  for  when  the  husband  is  at 
home,  he  can  take  care  of  his  wife  and  prevent  any  bad  conse- 
quences. 

R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel  said  again :  One  may 
kindle  a  fire  for  a  woman  lying  in,  on  the  Sabbath,  and  not  only 
for  a  woman  lying  in,  but  also  for  a  sick  person ;  not  only  in  the 
winter  but  also  in  the  summer-time,  as  R.  Hyya  bar  Abhin  said 
in  the  name  of  Samuel,  that  one,  who  was  bled  and  caught  cold, 
may  have  a  fire  made  for  him  on  Sabbath  not  only  in  the  winter, 
but  also  in  the  summer-time.  Samuel  once  was  bled  and  caught 
cold,  so  a  chair  made  of  elm-wood  was  chopped  up  and  a  fire 
made    for   him  (on    Sabbath).     The   same    thing   happened    to 


TRACT   SABBATH.  285 

R.  Jehudah ;  so  a  table  of  cedar-wood  was  chopped  up  and  a  fire 
made  for  him.  Rabba  had  the  same  experience  and  a  stool 
was  used  to  make  a  fire,  and  when  told  by  Abayi  that  he  was 
guilty  of  destroying  a  useful  article  said :  "  My  personal  wel- 
fare is  dearer  to  me  than  the  article." 

Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh  :  "  A  man  should  sell 
even  the  roof  of  his  house  and  buy  shoes  for  himself  if  in  need 
of  them ;  but  if  he  had  recently  been  bled  and  feels  hungry,  he 
should  sell  even  these  shoes  and  buy  food  with  the  proceeds." 
What  kind  of  food  should  he  purchase  ?  Rabh  said  meat,  and 
Samuel,  wine.  Rabh  said  meat,  as  being  a  substitute  for  flesh 
lost  through  bleeding,  and  Samuel  said  (red)  wine,  as  a  substi- 
tute for  (red)  blood. 

When  Samuel  had  himself  bled,  a  dish  made  of  milt  was 
prepared  for  him,  and  R.  Johanan  would  drink  wine  until  it 
could  be  smelt  through  his  ears.  R.  Na'hman  would  drink  wine 
until  his  spleen  would  float  in  wine.  R.  Joseph  would  drink 
wine  until  his  veins  would  swell  so  that  the  lancet  would  be 
forced  out,  and  Rabha  would  drink  only  wine  that  was  three 
years  old. 

Said  R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak  to  his  disciples:  I  beg  of  you, 
that  on  the  day  on  which  you  have  yourselves  bled,  you  should 
go  home  and  say  that  Na'hman  will  come  to  visit  you.  (In  con- 
sequence a  good  meal  and  wine  will  be  prepared,  and  you  can 
partake  of  it.)  Deceit  is  not  permitted  under  any  circumstances, 
but  those  mentioned  as  follows: 

One  who  is  bled,  and  has  not  the  money  to  buy  wine,  should 
take  a  mutilated  Zuz  and  go  to  seven  wine-dealers.  When  ask- 
ing for  wine  he  will  be  given  some  to  taste,  and  when  offering 
his  money,  it  will  be  rejected.  He  will  then  proceed  to  another 
dealer,  and  keep  on  until  he  will  have  drunk  a  quarter  of  a  lug. 
One  who  cannot  even  do  this,  should  eat  at  least  seven  black 
dates  and  should  put  oil  on  his  temples,  then  lie  down  in  the  sun 
and  go  to  sleep. 

Abhlat  (a  Persian  ofificial)  found  Samuel  sleeping  in  the  sun 
and  said  to  him:  "Thou  leader  of  Jews!  Can  a  good  thing 
emanate  from  a  bad  one?"  Samuel  answered:  "This  is  my 
bleeding-day."  In  reality  this  was  not  so,  but  there  are  days 
when  sleeping  in  the  sun  is  healthful;  for  instance,  on  the  day 
when  the  Tamuz  (July)  equinox  falls,  but  Samuel,  who  was  a 
physician,  would  not  tell  this  to  Abhlat. 

Rabh  and  Samuel  both   said:  "  The  man  who  eats  a  light 

VOL.  II.  —  7 


286  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

meal  on  the  day  when  he  is  bled,  has  light  earnings  decreed  for 
him  in  heaven  for  the  following  year,  because  if  he  himself  has 
no  pity  for  his  own  body,  he  is  not  worthy  of  being  pitied  by 
the  heavenly  host."  The  same  two  authorities  also  said,  that 
one  who  was  bled  should  not  sit  where  the  wind  blows ;  for  it 
may  be  that  the  surgeon  who  bled  him  allowed  too  much  blood 
to  escape,  and  the  wind  might  force  still  more  blood  from  him, 
and  thus  become  dangerous.  Samuel  was  always  bled  in  a 
house  the  walls  of  which  were  of  seven  bricks'  thickness,  and 
at  one  time  it  happened  that  he  felt  weak;  he  looked  up,  and 
noticed  that  a  brick  was  missing  from  the  wall. 

Rabh  and  Samuel  also  said,  that  a  man  who  was  bled  should 
not  go  out  into  the  street  without  having  partaken  of  some- 
thing. If  he  does  and  meets  a  corpse,  his  face  turns  yellow, 
and  if  he  should  happen  to  meet  a  murderer  he  will  die  himself, 
and  if  he  meets  a  pig  he  will  become  scabby.  They  also  said, 
that  after  bleeding  a  man  should  not  rise  immediately,  but 
should  rest  a  while  and  then  get  up ;  for  the  master  said,  that 
five  things  are  more  conducive  to  death  than  to  life.  They  are: 
Eating  and  arising  immediately,  drinking  and  arising,  sleeping 
and  arising,  being  bled  and  arising,  and  having  sexual  inter- 
course and  arising  immediately  afterw^ards. 

Samuel  said:  "A  young  man  should  be  bled  every  thirty 
days  until  he  is  forty  years  of  age.  From  forty  to  sixty  he 
should  be  bled  every  two  months,  and  after  sixty  he  should  be 
bled  every  three  or  four  months." 

Samuel  said  again :  The  fourth  day  of  the  week,  if  falling 
on  the  fourth,  fourteenth,  or  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  month, 
or  if  it  is  a  Wednesday  after  which  there  are  less  than  four  days 
to  the  end  of  the  month,  is  a  dangerous  day  for  bleeding.  Bleed- 
ing on  the  first  and  second  of  every  month  produces  weakness, 
and  on  the  third  day  it  is  dangerous.  Bleeding  on  the  eve  of 
any  biblical  festival  produces  weakness,  and  on  the  eve  of  Pen- 
tecost it  is  dangerous,  in  consequence  of  which  the  rabbis  insti- 
tuted the  precautionary  measure,  that  no  man  should  be  bled  on 
the  eve  of  a  festival,  for  fear  that  he  might  have  it  done  on  the 
eve  of  Pentecost. 

Again  Samuel  said :  "  One  who  had  eaten  heartily  of  wheaten 
food  is  not  wholly  benefited  by  being  bled,  but  is  simply  eased 
for  the  time  being."  This  means  to  say,  then,  that  one  who  has 
a  heavy  feeling  can  ease  himself  temporarily  by  being  bled  after 
a  meal,  but  is  not  permanently  benefited  thereby.     After  being 


TRACT    SABBATH.  287 

bled  one  may  drink  immediately,  but  should  not  eat  until  the 
time  in  which  he  could  walk  half  a  mile  had  elapsed. 

(On  a  day  when  nothing  profitable  had  been  performed)  Rabh 
used  to  proclaim  (the  following  simile):  If  one  bled  a  hundred 
persons,  he  earned  a  Zuz  for  each;  if  he  cut  the  hair  of  a  hun- 
dred persons,  he  earned  a  Zuz  for  each ;  but  if  he  trimmed  the 
mustaches  of  a  hundred  men,  he  labored  in  vain.*  (There  was 
no  charge  made  for  trimming  mustaches  when  done  in  conjunc- 
tion with  hair-cutting  or  bleeding.)  Said  R.  Joseph  :  We  learned 
at  the  college  of  R.  Huna,  that  a  day  on  which  the  disciples  did 
not  study  was  called  a  mustache-day,  and  I  did  not  understand 
the  meaning  of  the  term ;  but  now  I  can  see  the  significance 
of  the  expression,  for  it  means  to  say  that  the  day  was  lost. 

"And  tie  the  navel-string."  The  rabbis  taught:  "One 
may  tie  the  navel-string,"  and  R.  Jose  said:  "  One  may  cut  it 
also  on  the  Sabbath  and  deposit  the  afterbirth,  which  is  sup- 
posed to  be  a  remedy  to  keep  the  child  warm."  R.  Simeon  ben 
Gamaliel  said:  "  Daughters  of  kings  would  deposit  the  after- 
birth in  a  bowl  of  oil  and  rich  men's  daughters  would  deposit  it 
in  carded  wool.  Poor  people  would  deposit  it  in  feathers." 
Said  R.  Na'hman  in  the  name  of  Rabba  bar  Abuha,  quoting 
Rabh  :  "  The  Halakha  according  to  R.  Jose  prevails." 

R.  Na'hman  said  again,  quoting  the  same  authorities:  "  The 
rabbis  agree  with  R.  Jose,  that  when  two  children  were  born, 
both  attached  to  one  navel-string,  the  latter  may  be  cut,  because 
otherwise  it  would  be  dangerous."  He  also  said  again,  in  the 
name  of  the  same  authorities:  All  that  is  contained  in  the  ser- 
mon of  Ezekiel  may  be  done  for  a  woman  lying  in  on  Sabbath, 
as  it  is  written  [Ezekiel  xvi.  4] :  "  And  as  for  thy  birth,  on  the 
day  thou  wast  born  thy  navel  was  not  cut,  nor  wast  thou  washed 
in  water  to  be  cleansed ;  and  thou  wast  not  rubbed  with  salt, 
nor  wrapped  in  swaddling  clothes."  "  And  as  for  thy  birth," 
from  this  we  may  infer,  that  one  may  assist  in  the  birth  of  a 
child  on  Sabbath.  "  Thy  navel  was  not  cut,"  from  this  we  infer, 
that  the  navel  may  be  cut  on  Sabbath.  "  Nor  wast  thou  washed 
in  water  to  be  cleansed."  This  teaches  us  that  the  child  may 
be  washed  on  Sabbath.  "  Thou  wast  not  rubbed  with  salt." 
From  this  we  know,  that  a  child  may  be  rubbed  with  salt  on 
Sabbath.  "  Nor  wrapped  in  swaddling  clothes."  This  teaches 
us,  that  we  may  wrap  a  child  in  clothes  on  the  Sabbath. 

*  This  explanation  is  the  one  given  by  the  commentary  of  Tosphath,  which  seems 
to  us  to  be  more  to  the  point  than  the  one  given  by  Rashi. 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

REGULATIONS    ORDAINED    BY    R.    ELIEZER    CONCERNING    CIRCUMCISION 

ON    THE    SABBATH. 

MISHNA:  R.  Eliezer  saith:  If  the  knife  used  for  circum- 
cision was  not  brought  on  the  day  preceding  the  Sabbath,  one  is 
to  bring  it  publicly  on  the  Sabbath;  in  times  of  danger  (during 
persecutions)  one  may  conceal  it  (about  the  person)  before  wit- 
nesses. Further,  R.  Eliezer  saith :  One  may  even  cut  wood  to 
be  burnt  into  charcoal,  in  order  to  forge  an  iron  instrument 
(knife  for  circumcision).  The  following  rule  was  laid  down  by 
R.  Aqiba:  All  work  (necessary  in  aid  of  circumcision)  which 
could  have  been  performed  on  the  day  before  (Sabbath)  does  not 
supersede  (the  observance  of)  the  Sabbath,  but  such  work  as 
could  not  have  been  performed  on  the  day  before,  does  supersede 
(the  observance  of)  the  Sabbath. 

GEMARA:  A  question  was  propounded  by  the  schoolmen: 
"  What  does  R.  Eliezer  mean  by  saying,  *  one  is  to  bring  it 
publicly  on  the  Sabbath  '  ?  Doe  she  mean  to  say,  that  the  man 
thereby  demonstrates  how  dear  a  commandm.ent  (of  the  Lord)  is 
to  him,  that  he  is  ready  to  violate  the  Sabbath  for  its  sake,  or  is 
it  rather,  because  the  man  would  be  suspected  of  carrying  a 
prohibited  thing  on  the  Sabbath,  if  he  did  so  surreptitiously  ?" 
What  difference  does  it  make  what  R.  Eliezer  meant  ?  The  dif- 
ference is  this:  "  If  the  man  does  it  in  order  to  allay  suspicion, 
it  would  be  sufficient  to  have  two  witnesses  see  him  conceal  the 
knife  about  his  person  and  then  carry  it  even  in  times  of  peace ; 
but  if  the  man  does  it  in  order  to  demonstrate  his  love  of  God's 
commandments,  he  must  carry  it  publicly  even  if  he  have  two 
witnesses."  What  is  the  conclusion  ?  It  was  taught  that 
R.  Levi  said:  "  R.  Eliezer  meant  only  for  the  man  to  demon- 
strate his  veneration  of  God's  commandments."  This  is  sup- 
ported by  a  Boraitha,  which  plainly  states,  that  a  man  should 
carry  it  publicly,  and  not  have  it  concealed,  such  are  the  words 
of  R.  Eliezer.  Said  R.  Ashi :  All  this  is  unnecessary.  Our 
Mishna  plainly  teaches  us  the  same,   for  it  says,  that  only  in 

288 


TRACT    SABBATH.  289 

times  of  danger  the  knife  should  be  concealed,  and  it  is  easily 
understood  that  only  in  times  of  danger  is  this  to  be  done,  but 
not  under  ordinary  circumstances,  and  for  what  purpose  ?  Only 
to  show  that  a  commandment  should  be  venerated.  It  follows, 
therefrom,  that  the  argument  is  accepted. 

We  have  learned  in  another  Boraitha:  "  One  is  to  bring  it 
publicly,"  and  not  have  it  concealed,  such  are  the  words  of 
R.  Eliezer;  and  R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Eliczer, 
that  in  times  of  danger  the  custom  was  to  conceal  it  about  the 
person  before  two  witnesses. 

"  Further,  saith  R.  Eliezer,"  etc.  The  rabbis  taught:  In  the 
place  where  R.  Eliezer  resided,  wood  was  cut  and  burnt  into, 
charcoal,  in  order  to  forge  an  instrument  (knife  for  circumcision) 
on  Sabbath.  In  the  place  where  R.  Jose  of  Galilee  lived,  fowls 
were  eaten  with  milk.  R,  Itz'hak  said:  There  was  a  city  in 
Palestine  where  R.  Eliezer's  teaching  was  carried  out,  and  there 
were  no  premature  deaths  in  that  city ;  and  not  only  this,  but  at 
one  time  when  the  government  prohibited  circumcision  in  the 
entire  land,  that  city  was  not  included  in  the  decree. 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel 
said:  "  Every  commandment  of  the  Lord  which  was  received 
by  the  children  of  Israel  with  joy,  for  instance  circumcision, 
concerning  which  it  is  written  [Psalms  cxix.  162] :  '  I  am 
rejoiced  over  thy  promise,*  as  one  that  findeth  great  spoil,'  is 
even  now  observed  with  joy;  but  every  commandment  which 
was  received  with  protest,  for  instance  the  law  of  incestuous 
marriages,  concerning  which  it  is  written  [Numbers  xi.  10] : 
'  And  Moses  heard  the  people  weep  according  to  their  families,' 
meaning  the  case  (of  intermarriage)  among  the  families,  is  even 
now  observed  reluctantly,  for  there  are  no  marriages  celebrated 
without  some  discord  among  the  families." 

We  have  learned,  that  R.  Simeon  ben  Elazar  said:  "  Every 
commandment  for  the  observance  of  which  the  Israelites  were 
ready  to  lay  down  their  lives,  as  for  that  prohibiting  idolatry  and 
commanding  circumcision,  is  observed  punctually  even  to  this 
day;  but  such  commandments  as  they  would  not  sacrifice  them- 
selves for  are  even  now  lightly  regarded,  as  is  the  case  with 
the  commandment  concerning  Tephillin."     As  R.  Yanai  said: 

*  Promise  stands  for  the  Hebrew  "  Imrothecho,"  literally  "  thy  word,"  and  the 
word  here  referred  to  signifies  the  first  commandment  piven  to  Abraham,  which  was 
the  commandment  of  circumcision.  Hence  the  deduction,  that  the  commandment 
of  circumcision  was  received  with  joy. — Rashi. 


290  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

"  TephilHn  require  a  clean  body,  such  as  Elisha  the  man  of 
doves  possessed."  What  is  meant  by  a  clean  body?  Abayi 
said  :  "  A  body  that  emits  no  odor  when  clothed  with  Tephillin," 
and  Rabha  said :  "  A  body  that  will  never  become  drowsy  while 
wearing  Tephillin."  Why  was  Elisha  called  "  the  man  of 
wings"  ?  It  once  happened  that  the  government  promulgated 
a  decree  by  which  all  Israelites  who  would  use  Tephillin  (phy- 
lacteries) were  to  be  decapitated.  This  Elisha  donned  his  phy- 
lacteries and  went  out  into  the  market.  He  was  seen  by  a  casdor 
(qusEstor),  and  the  latter  pursued  him.  Seeing  that  he  could  not 
escape,  Elisha  took  the  phylacteries  from  his  head  and  carried 
them  in  his  hand.  When  questioned  by  the  quaestor  what  he 
carried  in  his  hand,  he  replied:  "Wings  of  doves."  When 
opening  his  hand,  he  really  found  doves*  wings,*  and  was  there- 
fore called  the  man  of  wings  ever  afterwards. 

R.  Aba  the  son  of  R.  Ada  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Itz'hak: 
"It  once  happened,  that  having  forgotten  to  bring  the  knife  for 
circumcision  on  the  day  before  Sabbath,  a  man  brought  it  on 
Sabbath,  by  way  of  the  roof  and  private  ground,  against  the 
will  of  R.  Eliezer. "  R.  Joseph  opposed  this:  "  How  canst  thou 
say,  that  this  occurred  against  the  will  of  R.  Eliezer  ?  It  was 
R.  Eliezer  himself  who  permitted  bringing  the  knife  on  Sabbath? 
Thou  wouldst  infer,  then,  that  bringing  the  knife  by  way  of  pri- 
vate ground,  and  not  publicly,  was  against  his  will,  because  he 

*  This  seeming  miracle  is  explained  at  length  in  our  History  of  Amulets,  pp. 
24-26,  and  the  gist  of  the  explanation  is  as  follows  :  The  government  referred  to 
above  and  in  power  at  the  time  of  Elisha  was  Greek  and  not  Roman,  a  fact  demon- 
strated by  the  late  Dr.  Krochmal  in  his  "  Eyon  tephilah."  The  Greeks,  being  at  that 
time  at  war  with  the  Egfyptians,  sought  to  destroy  any  ties  of  affinity  existing 
between  the  Jews  and  the  Egyptians,  and  to  that  end  promulgated  the  decree  pro- 
hibiting the  wearing  of  Tephillin  by  the  Jews,  for  those  Tephillin  bore  close  resem- 
blance to  the  totaphoth  (amulets)  worn  by  the  Egyptians.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  all 
amulets  worn  at  that  time  by  the  different  nations  bore  a  symbol  of  their  gods  or 
idols,  and  was  also  a  mark  of  nationality  ;  hence  the  government  in  power  desired 
that  all  its  vassals  wear  its  own  amulets.  The  Talmud  elsewhere  relates  that  the 
Samaritans  worshipped  as  their  idol  the  form  of  a  dove,  for  on  Mount  Gerizim, 
which  is  in  Samaritan  territory,  an  idol  of  that  kind  was  found,  which  had  been 
worshipped  by  them.  Elisha  knew  of  this,  and,  mindful  of  the  fact  that  the  Greeks 
were  at  peace  with  the  Samaritans,  carried  along  with  him  amulets  in  the  form  of 
doves'  wings  (which  was  the  amulet  of  the  Samaritans)  in  order  to  substitute  them 
for  his  Tephillin,  whenever  the  necessity  for  the  deception  arose.  When  closely 
pressed  by  the  quaestor,  and  not  considering  the  commandment  of  wearing  Tephillin 
sufficiently  important  to  sacrifice  his  life  on  their  account,  he,  while  endeavoring 
to  escape,  changed  his  Tephillin  for  the  doves'  wings,  to  which  the  quaestor  could 
raise  no  objection. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  291 

insists  that  the  knife  should  be  brought  publicly  through  public 
ground  only.  In  accordance  with  whose  will  was  it  done  ?  If 
thou  wilt  say,  it  was  done  in  accordance  with  the  decree  of  the 
rabbis,  who  prohibit  bringing  the  knife  through  public  ground, 
and  permit  it  through  private  ground  and  roofs,  did  the  rabbis 
indeed  permit  this?  Have  we  not  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  that  in 
the  same  measure  as  it  is  not  allowed  to  bring  the  knife  through 
public  ground,  it  must  also  not  be  brought  through  roofs  and 
private  ground?"  Therefore  R.  Ashi  supplemented  the  state- 
ment of  R.  Aba  by  adding,  that  the  knife  was  brought  against 
the  will  of  R.  Eliezer  and  his  opponents ;  but  in  accordance  with 
the  decree  of  R.  Simeon,  who  permits  the  carrying  of  every- 
thing through  private  ground  and  roofs,  even  if  they  were  not 
combined  by  an  Erub  (in  Tract  Erubim). 

R.  Zera  once  found  R.  Assi  sitting  and  saying:  R.  Simeon 
ben  Lakish  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehudah  Hanassi  as  follows: 
It  once  happened  that  they  forgot  to  bring  a  knife  for  circumci- 
sion on  the  eve  of  Sabbath,  so  they  brought  it  on  Sabbath. 
This  angered  the  sages  very  much,  for  the  reason,  that  the  decree 
of  the  former  sages  had  been  set  aside  and  that  they  had  acted 
according  to  the  decree  of  R.  Eliezer.  Firstly,  because  R. 
Eliezer  was  an  adherent  of  the  school  of  Shamai ;  and  secondly, 
because  where  one  man  is  opposed  to  a  number  the  majority- 
should  prevail,  and  the  majority  was  against  R.  Eliezer;  and 
R.  Osiah  answered  the  sages,  who  were  angered,  that  the  case 
was  not  as  it  appeared  to  them.  "  For,"  said  he,  "  I  asked 
R.  Jehudah  the  circumciser,  and  he  told  me,  that  the  knife 
was  brought  through  an  alley  which  was  not  combined  by 
an  Erub,  from  one  end  to  the  other,  but  not  through  public 
ground." 

R.  Zera  then  said  to  R.  Assi:  "  Does  the  master  hold,  that 
things  may  be  removed  in  an  alley  which  was  not  combined  by 
an  Erub  ?"  R.  Assi  answered,  that  they  might.  Said  R.  Zera 
again:  "  Did  I  not  ask  thee  once  before  and  thou  gavest  me 
another  answer  ?  Was  it  because  thou  wast  engaged  in  other 
matters  and  this  Halakha  escaped  thee  ?  "  and  the  answer  was: 
"  Such  was  the  case." 

R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan :  "  The 
rule  laid  down  by  R.  Eliezer,  that  for  everything  pertaining  to 
circumcision  the  Sabbath  may  be  violated,  does  not  apply  also 
to  other  duties  of  the  day  which  should  happen  to  fall  on  the 
Sabbath ;  because,   where   the  preparations    necessary    for    the 


292  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

bringing  of  the  two  loaves  on  Pentecost  are  concerned,  R.  Elie- 
zer  permitted  them  to  be  made  on  Sabbath  merely  through 
deduction  by  analogy,  although  this  was  also  a  duty  of  the  day 
based  on  a  biblical  ordinance."  Which  other  duties  of  the 
day  does  R.  Johanan  intend  to  except  from  this  rule  ?  We 
know,  that  in  preparing  the  booth,  the  palm-branch,  and  all 
their  accessories  (for  the  feast  of  Booths)  the  Sabbath  may 
be  violated.  The  same  is  the  case  with  Lulab,  with  Matza, 
and  with  Shofar,  as  it  is  stated  in  other  Boraithas.  Such  is 
the  dictum  of  R.  Eliezer.  Said  R.  Ada  bar  Ahabha:  "  R. 
Johanan  intended  to  except  Tzitzith  (show-threads)  for  a  gar- 
ment and  a  Mezuzah  (door-post  inscription)  for  a  house  (al- 
though both  of  these  are  duties  of  the  day,  for  if  a  man  wear 
a  garment  he  must  have  Tzitzith,  and  if  he  enter  a  house  he 
must  have  a  Mezuzah.)  "  This  we  have  also  learned  in  a  Bo- 
raitha:  "  They  all  agree  (even  R.  Eliezer),  that  if  one  made  a 
show-thread  for  his  garment,  or  a  Mezuzah  for  his  door,  on  the 
Sabbath,  he  is  liable  for  a  sin-offering."  Why  so  ?  Said  R. 
Joseph:  "  Because  no  specified  time  is  set  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  these  duties."  Said  Abayi  to  him:  "  On  the  contrary, 
just  because  no  specified  time  was  set  for  the  accomplishment  of 
that  duty,  every  moment  is  the  time  for  performing  it  (so,  if  he 
have  the  garment  on  Sabbath,  or  enter  the  house  on  that  day,  he 
should  perform  those  duties,  and  hence  it  must  be  considered  a 
duty  of  the  day)."  Therefore  said  R.  Na'hman  in  the  name  of 
R.  Itz'hak,  and  according  to  others  R.  Huna  the  son  of  R. 
Jehoshua  :  "  The  reason  is,  because  one  is  enabled  to  abandon 
these  things  for  the  time  being  (and  hence  the  duty  does  not 
devolve  upon  him  for  that  day)." 

From  what  we  have  learned  above,  we  see,  that  for  the  cir- 
cumcision itself  and  all  its  necessary  accessories  the  Sabbath 
may  be  violated,  according  to  the  dictum  of  R.  Eliezer.  Whence 
does  he  deduce  this  ?  This  is  the  reasoning  of  R.  Eliezer:  It 
is  written  [Leviticus  xii.  3] :  "  And  on  the  eighth  day  shall  the 
flesh  of  his  foreskin  be  circumcised."  Thus,  as  it  says  dis- 
tinctly the  eighth  day,  it  makes  no  difference  what  day  the 
eighth  falls  on,  whether  it  be  Sabbath  or  not.  Let  us  see:  The 
rabbis  and  R.  Eliezer  differ  only  as  far  as  the  preparations  for 
circumcision  on  the  Sabbath  are  concerned,  but  not  as  to  the 
circumcision  itself.  If,  then,  they  do  not  regard  the  text  quoted 
as  does  R.  Eliezer,  they  should  not  even  permit  the  violation 
of  the  Sabbath  on  account  of  circumcision  itself.     What  source 


TRACT    SABBATH.  293 

do  they  base  their  permission  on  ?  Said  Ula,  and  also  R.  Itz- 
'hak:  "  This  is  traditional." 

An  objection  was  raised  :  \Vc  have  learned  that  the  Sabbath 
may  be  violated  in  order  to  save  life.  Whence  do  we  know  this  ? 
Said  R.  Elazar  ben  Azariah :  "  Why!  if  it  be  permitted  when 
circumcision  is  concerned  to  violate  the  Sabbath,  where  but 
one  of  the  many  members  of  the  body  is  concerned,  it  should 
certainly  be  permitted  in  so  much  greater  a  degree  when  the 
wiiole  body  is  to  be  saved.  If  thou  sayest,  then,  that  the  per- 
mission to  perform  circumcision  on  the  Sabbath  is  only  tradi- 
tional, how  is  it  possible  that  thou  shouldst  derive  an  a  fortiori 
assumption  from  a  traditional  institution?"  Therefore  R.  Jo- 
hanan  saith,  that  the  permission  to  perform  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision on  Sabbath  is  not  based  upon  tradition,  but  is  derived 
from  the  word  "  day,"  as  the  verse  quoted  above  reads:  "  And 
on  the  eighth  day,"  etc.;  whereas  it  could  read  simply,  "  And 
on  the  eighth";  for  in  the  preceding  verse  we  read  "seven 
days,"  etc. 

Said  Resh  Lakish  to  R.  Johanan  :  "  The  word  '  day,'  however, 
is  also  necessar)',  that  we  may  know  that  the  rite  must  be  per- 
formed during  the  day  and  not  at  night!  "  This  can  be  inferred 
from  another  passage  [Genesis  xvii.  12],  where  it  expressly  says: 
"  And  at  eight  days  old  shall  every  man-child  in  your  generations 
be  circumcised,"  etc. 

R.  A'ha  bar  Jacob  said :  As  far  as  the  rite  of  circumcision 
itself  is  concerned,  the  rabbis  also  hold  that  the  permission  to 
perform  it  is  based  on  the  passage  quoted,  "  and  on  the  eighth 
day";  but  as  for  the  preparations  necessary  for  circumcision, 
they  claim  to  find  no  justification  for  violating  the  Sabbath  on 
that  account.  But  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  "  the  eighth  " 
be  mentioned,  for  othenvise  how  would  we  know  that  the  rite 
should  not  be  performed  on  the  seventh  ?  That  is  also  definitely 
settled  by  the  other  passage,  as  stated  above:  "And  at  eight 
days  old,"  etc.  Still,  both  passages  arc  necessary,  in  order  to 
prove  that  the  eighth  day  is  the  day  for  circumcision ;  because, 
if  it  did  not  state  expressly  "  on  the  eighth  day,"  it  might  be 
presumed  that  the  seventh  day  would  do,  and  if  it  did  not  state 
"  at  eight  days  old,"  it  might  be  presumed  that  after  the  child 
is  eight  days  old  any  other  later  day,  e.g.,  the  ninth,  would  do. 
Hence  R.  Johanan's  explanation  is  the  most  acceptable;  and  we 
have  learned  in  a  Boraitha  in  support  of  R.  Johanan's  explana- 
tion, and  not  of  that  of  R.  A'ha  bar  Jacob,  as  follows:  "  On 


294  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

the  eighth  day  shall  he  be  circumcised,  even  though  it  be  Sab- 
bath." How,  then,  is  it  possible  to  keep  the  commandment  in 
Exodus  xxxi.  14  ?  "  And  ye  shall  keep  the  Sabbath,  for  it  is 
holy  unto  you :  every  one  that  defileth  it  shall  surely  be  put  to 
death."  This  refers  to  other  labor,  but  not  to  that  of  circumci- 
sion. How,  then,  do  we  know  that  circumcision  is  not  included 
in  the  prohibited  labor,  and  that  the  eighth  day  does  not  refer 
to  all  other  days  except  Sabbath  ?  To  this  end  it  reads  "  the 
eighth  day,''  and  "  day  "  means,  even  on  Sabbath. 

The  rabbis  taught :  Although  it  is  written  [Deut.  xxiv.  8] : 
"  Take  heed  in  the  plague  of  leprosy,"  which  signifies,  that  the 
leprous  spot  must  not  be  cut;  but  if  the  white  spot  (the  symp- 
tom of  leprosy)  show  itself  on  the  member  to  be  circumcised, 
it  may  be  cut  off,  whether  the  member  be  circumcised  at  the 
prescribed  time  or  afterwards. 

A  biblical  festival  must  not  be  violated  on  account  of  circum- 
cision, unless  it  happen  to  be  the  eighth  day  (precisely  the  pre- 
scribed time).  Whence  do  we  adduce  these  two  ordinances  ? 
From  the  teaching  of  the  rabbis,  as  follows:  The  first  one  is 
based  on  the  verse  [Leviticus  xii.  3] :  "  And  on  the  eighth  day 
shall  \.)\Q  Jiesh  of  his  foreskin  be  circumcised."  The  order  is 
imperative,  regardless  of  whether  the  member  be  leprous  or  not. 
Whence  do  we  know  this  ?  Perhaps  it  means  to  say,  that  only 
the  healthy  flesh  of  the  foreskin  be  circumcised  ?  Nay;  it  could 
say  merely  the  foreskin,  but  it  says  expressly  the  fesh  of  the 
foreskin,  meaning  that  even  if  the  flesh  be  leprous  it  should  also 
be  circumcised.  What  need  is  there  of  a  special  verse  for  this 
purpose  ?  During  circumcision  no  intention  to  cut  leprous  flesh 
exists;  hence,  if  it  be  done,  it  is  done  unintentionally,  and  an 
unintentional  act  does  not  involve  culpability?  Said  Abayi: 
"  The  verse  is  used  here  to  counteract  the  opinion  of  R.  Jehu- 
dah,  who  holds,  that  an  act  committed  unintentionally  also 
involves  culpability."  Rabha  said:  "  The  verse  must  be  used, 
even  if  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon  be  adhered  to,  who  holds, 
that  an  act  committed  unintentionally  does  not  involve  culpabil- 
ity. For  in  this  case  it  is  different ;  the  act  committed  here  is 
like  the  one  where  a  man  would  behead  another  and  still  claim  ' 
no  intention  to  kill  him  (and  when  circumcising  the  flesh  of  the 
foreskin,  if  there  be  a  leprous  sore,  one  cannot  help  but  cut  it). 
This,  even  R.  Simeon  admits,  would  involve  culpability,  were  it 
not  for  that  exonerating  verse."  Does  Rabha  alone  hold  thus  ? 
Have  we  not   learned  elsewhere  that   Abayi  and    Rabha   both 


TRACT   SABBATH.  295 

agree,  that  R.  Simeon  declares  even  an  unintentional  act,  which 
is,  however,  like  the  case  of  one  beheading  another  without  the 
intention  to  kill  him,  to  be  prohibited  ?  After  Abayi  had  heard 
Rabha's  explanation,  he  accepted  it. 

The  second  ordinance  mentioned  is,  according  to  Rabha, 
based  upon  the  verse  [Exodus  xii.  16]:  "  No  manner  of  work 
shall  be  done  on  them,  save  what  is  eaten  by  every  man  ;  that 
only  may  be  prepared  by  you."  "  That  "  stands  for  circumci- 
sion only  in  its  prescribed  time,  but  not  for  the  preparation  for 
it;  and  "  only"  stands  as  a  prohibition  not  to  perform  the  rite 
unless  it  be  the  prescribed  time.  R.  Ashi,  however,  said:  "  No 
special  verse  is  needed  for  this,  for  a  festival  is  referred  to  [in 
Leviticus  xxiii.  32]  as  "  a  sabbath  of  rest  shall  it  be  unto  you." 
Hence  it  is  a  positive  commandment,  and  the  verse  stated  (imme- 
diately before  this)  is  a  negative  commandment ;  thus  a  festival 
is  covered  by  both  a  positive  and  negative  commandment,  while 
circumcision  is  covered  by  a  positive  commandment  only,  and 
one  positive  commandment  cannot  supersede  a  joint  positive  and 
negative  commandment. 

"  A  rule  was  laid  down  by  R.  Aqiba."  Said  R.  Jehudah  in 
the  name  of  Rabh :  "  The  Halakha  according  to  R.  Aqiba  pre- 
vails." We  have  learned  also  in  the  matter  of  Passover  sacri- 
fices to  the  same  effect,  that  every  act  of  labor  that  can  be  per- 
formed on  the  day  before  Sabbath  must  not  supersede  the 
(due  observance  of)  Sabbath,  but  the  killing  of  the  sacrifice, 
which  cannot  be  done  on  the  day  before  Sabbath,  does  supersede 
(the  due  observance  of)  Sabbath;  and  R.  Jehudah  declared  also, 
in  the  name  of  Rabh,  that  the  Halakha  according  to  R.  Aqiba 
prevails.  It  is  necessary  that  he  should  so  instruct  us  at  both 
times,  because,  if  he  instructed  only  as  concerns  circumcision, 
we  might  assume  that  where  sacrifices  for  the  Passover  are  con- 
cerned, the  preparations  which  could  have  been  made  on  the  day 
before  Sabbath,  but  were  not,  would  supersede  the  due  observ- 
ance of  the  Sabbath ;  because  failure  to  bring  that  sacrifice 
would  involve  the  punishment  of  Karath  (being  cut  off),  while 
failure  in  circumcision  would  not  involve  Karath,  if  not  per- 
formed at  the  right  time;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  had  he 
instructed  us  only  as  concerns  sacrifices  for  the  Passover,  we 
might  assume  that  the  Sabbath  could  be  violated  if  the  acts 
necessary'  for  circumcision  which  could  have  been  performed  on 
the  day  before,  were  not;  for  the  reason,  that  the  covenant 
regarding  circumcision  is  mentioned  thirteen  times  in  the  Thora, 


296  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

and  is  in  consequence  regarded  as  a  thirteenfold  commandment, 
which  must  under  all  circumstances  be  observed.  Hence  the 
necessity  for  the  twofold  instruction. 

MISHNA:  One  may  perform  everything  necessary  for  cir- 
cumcision on  the  Sabbath,  as  circumcising,  tearing  open,  suck- 
ing out  the  blood,  applying  a  plaster  or  caraway  seed.  If  the 
latter  had  not  been  ground  before  the  Sabbath,  one  may  masti- 
cate it  with  the  teeth  and  then  apply  it.  If  one  had  not  mixed 
wine  with  oil  before  the  Sabbath,  he  may  apply  each  separately. 
One  must  not  prepare  an  actual  bandage  (on  the  Sabbath),  but 
may  apply  an  old  piece  of  linen ;  and  if  such  had  not  been  pre- 
pared before  the  Sabbath,  the  circumciser  may  bring  it  with  him 
tied  around  his  finger  and  even  from  another  court  (yard). 

GEMARA:  Let  us  see:  The  Mishna  enumerates  all  the  acts 
necessary  for  the  performance  of  the  rite  of  circumcision ;  why, 
then,  does  it  commence  by  saying,  "  everything  necessary"  for 
circumcision,  and  then  proceed  to  detail  "  everything"  ?  What 
act  is  there  that  has  not  been  enumerated  ?  The  Mishna  means 
to  include  what  was  taught  us  by  the  rabbis,  as  follows:  "  The 
circumciser,  while  engaged  in  finishing  the  circumcision,  if  notic- 
ing that  excrescences  still  remain  on  the  gland,  whether  they  are 
of  a  nature  which  make  the  circumcision  invalid  or  such  as  do 
not  make  it  invalid,  may  remove  them.  But  if  he  had  already 
finished  (and  put  up  his  instruments),  if  excrescences  which 
make  the  circumcision  invalid  remain,  he  may  remove  them ; 
but  if  they  do  not  make  the  circumcision  invalid,  he  must  not 
remove  them."  (Hence  by  stating  "  everything  that  is  neces- 
sary," etc.,  the  Mishna  means  to  include,  that  it  is  permitted 
even  to  remove  excrescences  which  do  not  make  the  circumcision 
invalid,  provided  the  operator  had  not  already  finished  and  put 
up  his  instruments.)  Who  is  the  Tana  who  holds,  that  if  the 
circumciser  had  already  finished  he  must  not  return  and  remove 
the  excrescences  ?  Said  Rabha  bar  bar  Hana  in  the  name  of  R. 
Johanan,  it  was  R.  Ishmael  the  son  of  R.  Johanan  ben  Berokah, 
as  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  "  If  the  fourteenth  of  Nissan 
fall  on  a  Sabbath,  the  animal  used  for  the  Passover  sacrifice  may 
be  skinned  only  as  far  as  the  breast,  so  saith  R.  Ishmael  the  son 
of  R.  Johanan  ben  Berokah;  but  the  sages  say,  that  the  whole 
animal  may  be  skinned."  (Now,  we  see  that  R.  Ishmael  holds, 
that  after  the  work  had  been  completed  as  far  as  was  necessary 
no  more  may  be  done;  hence  he  is  the  one  who  says,  tliat  the 
circumciser  must  not  return  to  remove  the  excrescences.)     This 


TRACT   SABBATH.  297 

is  not  conclusive  evidence!  It  may  be  that  R.  Ishmael  in  the 
case  of  the  sacrifice  holds,  that  because  it  is  not  necessary  that 
the  commandment  be  beautified.*  But  in  the  case  of  circum- 
cision, where  the  beautifying  of  the  commandment  is  necessary 
(as  is  taught  in  Tract  Sakkah),  we  might  say,  that  R.  Ishmael  is 
of  a  different  opinion;  therefore  the  sages  of  Neherdai  say,  that 
the  Tanas  who  hold,  that  after  having  finished  the  circumcision 
the  operator  must  not  commence  anew,  are  in  reality  the  rabbis 
who  differ  with  R.  Jose  in  Tract  Menachoth  concerning  the  law 
of  the  showbreads.f 

The  rabbis  taught:  "  If  excrescences  remain  on  the  gland 
after  circumcision,  and  are  such  as  make  the  circumcision  in- 
valid, they  must  be  removed ;  and  failure  to  do  so  involves  the 
punishment  of  Karath."  Who  becomes  liable  to  be  punished 
by  Karath  ?  Said  R.  Kahana:  "  The  circumciser."  (If  he  per- 
formed the  circumcision  on  Sabbath  and  did  not  finish  it,  he 
simply  made  a  wound  and  did  not  perform  a  commandment ; 
hence  he  becomes  amenable  to  Karath.  R.  Papa  opposed  this : 
"  The  circumciser  might  say,  '  I  have  performed  one  half  of  a 
commandment ;  come  ye  and  complete  the  other  half.  Why 
should  I  be  punished  by  Karath  ? '  Therefore  if  the  circumcision 
was  performed  on  an  adult  who,  excrescences  which  make  it 
invalid  having  remained,  will  not  permit  them  to  be  removed, 
he  becomes  amenable  to  Karath."  This  was  opposed  by  R. 
Ashi:  "  As  for  an  adult,  what  news  does  that  impart  to  us  ?  It 
is  expressly  stated  [Genesis  xvii.  14] :  '  And  any  uncircumcised 
male,  who  circumciseth  not  the  flesh  of  his  foreskin,  that  soul 
shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people'  ?  Therefore  he  says  nay;  it 
really  refers  to  the  circumciser,  and  only  then  if  he  came  late  on 
Sabbath,  near  twilight,  and  was  told  that  it  would  be  impossible 
to  finish  the  operation  before  night,  but  persisted  in  performing 
it.  If  in  consequence  he  left  excrescences  which  make  the  cir- 
cumcision invalid,  he  simply  made  a  wound  without  performing 
a  commandment,  and  thus  he  becomes  amenable  to  Karath." 

"  Sucking  out  the  blood.''  R.  Papa  said:  "  The  circumciser 
who  does  not  suck  out  the  wound  places  the  child  in  danger, 
and  should  be  discharged  from  office."     Is  this  not  self-evident  ? 

*The  Hebrew  word  "  Veanvehu  "  is  interpreted  by  the  Talmud  to  signify  "  and  I 
will  beautify  him,"  while  in  the  translation  of  the  Bible,  by  I.  Lecser,  it  is  translated, 
"  I  will  sing  his  praise,"  and  the  reference  made  to  the  verse  by  the  Talmud  accepts 
the  term  in  its  Talmudical  sense. 

f  This  will  be  explained  in  the  Tract  Menachoth. 


298  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

It  certainly  must  be  dangerous  not  to  do  this,  or  the  Sabbath 
would  not  be  violated  in  order  to  perform  that  duty !  We  might 
assume,  that  the  blood  having  already  come  to  the  surface  it 
would  run  out  of  itself,  and  hence  by  sucking  it  out  the  Sab- 
bath is  not  violated ;  hence  we  are  given  to  understand  that  this 
is  not  so :  the  blood  is  moved  only  by  the  suction,  and  the  Sab- 
bath is  violated;  but  failure  to  do  this  would  involve  danger  for 
the  child  and  hence  it  is  permitted,  and  is  regarded  the  same  as 
applying  a  plaster  or  caraway  seeds  (mentioned  further  on  in  the 
Mishna),  the  omission  of  which  would  also  involve  danger  to 
the  child. 

"  Applying  a  plaster  or  caraway  seeds.''  Abayi  said:  "  My 
mother  told  me,  that  the  most  effective  plaster  for  all  ills  is 
made  of  seven  different  kinds  of  fat  and  one  kind  of  wax  "  ;  and 
Rabha  said:  "  The  best  plaster  for  all  ills  is  one  made  of  wax 
and  resin."  Rabha  stated  this  publicly  in  a  lecture  in  the  city 
of  Mehuzza,  and  two  brothers  the  sons  of  Minyumi,  who  were 
physicians,  tore  their  clothes  in  anger;  for  they  had  known  of  it 
and  made  capital  out  of  the  secret,  until  Rabha  came  and 
revealed  it.  Said  Rabha  to  them:  "  I  will  tell  you  of  some- 
thing that  I  shall  not  proclaim  publicly,  and  that  is,  Samuel 
said,  that  one  who  washes  his  face  and  does  not  dry  it  thor- 
oughly, becomes  afflicted  with  scabs,  and  the  remedy  for  such  is 
the  fluid  extract  of  mangold." 

'  *  If  the  latter  {caraway  seeds)  had  not  been  ground  before  the 
Sabbath,''  etc.  The  rabbis  taught:  "  In  preparing  for  circumci- 
sion, such  things  as  must  not  be  done  on  Sabbath,  may  be  done 
on  a  festival.  One  may  grind  the  seeds  and  mix  wine  with  oil." 
Asked  Abayi  of  R.  Joseph :  Why  may  the  caraway  seeds  be 
ground  on  a  festival  ?  because  they  may  be  utilized  for  cooking: 
then  why  should  it  not  be  permitted  to  mix  wine  with  oil  on 
Sabbath  ?  It  may  be  utilized  for  a  sick  person  who  is  not  dan- 
gerously ill.  As  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  "  Wine  and  oil 
must  not  be  mixed  for  a  sick  person  on  the  Sabbath,"  but  R. 
Simeon  ben  Elazar  in  the  name  of  R.  Meir  said,  that  it  may 
be.  Said  R.  Simeon  ben  Elazar:  It  once  happened,  that  R. 
Meir  was  sick  with  stomach  trouble,  and  we  wanted  to  mix  wine 
with  oil  for  him  (on  the  Sabbath),  but  he  would  not  permit  us 
to  do  this.  So  we  asked  him  whether  he  wished  his  own  words 
to  be  made  void  during  his  lifetime,  and  he  answered:  "  Nay;  it 
is  allowed  to  mix  wine  with  oil  on  Sabbath,  but  I  cannot  bring 
it  over  mc  to  act  contrary  to  the  decree  of   my  colleagues." 


TRACT    SABBATH.  299 

Thus  we  see,  that  it  is  at  all  events  allowed  to  mix  wine  with  oil 
on  the  Sabbath.  Why,  then,  does  the  Mishna  say,  that  if  this 
was  not  done  on  the  day  before  the  Sabbath,  each  should  be 
applied  separately  ?  The  difference  lies  therein,  that  when 
giving  it  to  a  sick  person,  it  is  merely  mixed,  but  when  used  for 
a  balm  (at  circumcision)  it  must  be  thoroughly  stirred  and  re- 
quires a  good  deal  of  labor.  Let  it  be  given  (applied)  just 
mixed.  That  is  just  what  the  Mishna  prescribes,  each  to  be 
applied  separately;  i.e.,  it  should  not  be  stirred. 

Abayi  said:  "  My  mother  told  me,  that  if  a  child  appears 
red  all  over  it  is  a  sign  that  the  circulation  is  imperfect,  and 
hence  circumcision  should  be  postponed  until  the  circulation  is 
perfect.  If  a  child  has  a  greenish  cast  it  is  a  sign  that  the  blood 
is  impoverished,  and  circumcision  should  then  be  postponed 
until  the  blood  is  richer."  This  we  have  also  learned  in  a  Bo- 
raitha,  as  follows:  "  R.  Nathan  said:  '  I  once  went  to  a  city  by 
the  sea,  and  there  met  a  woman  whose  first  and  second  ciiild 
both  died  in  consequence  of  circumcision.  The  third  child  she 
brought  to  me,  and  I  noticed  that  it  was  quite  red.  I  told  her 
to  wait  until  the  blood  had  settled  and  then  circumcise  it.  She 
did  so  and  then  circumcised  it,  and  the  child  lived.  The  child 
was  then  named  after  me,  Nathan  the  Babylonian.  At  another 
time  I  came  to  the  country  of  Cappadocia,  and  a  woman  came 
to  me  telling  me  that  she  had  had  two  children  circumcised,  both 
of  whom  had  died  in  consequence  of  circumcision.  The  third 
she  brought  to  me,  and  I  noticed  that  it  had  a  greenish  cast.  I 
also  noticed,  that  if  it  were  circumcised  no  Wood  would  flow;  so 
I  told  her  to  wait  until  the  circulation  of  the  blood  was  in  order. 
She  did  so,  and  the  child  was  circumcised,  and  lived.  She 
named  it  also  after  me,  and  called  it  Nathan  the  Babylonian.'  " 

MISHNA  :  One  may  bathe  the  child  both  before  the  circum- 
cision as  well  as  after  (on  Sabbath),  by  sprinkling  water  over  it 
with  the  hand,  but  not  by  pouring  water  over  it  from  a  vessel. 
R.  Eliezer  ben  Azariah  says :  One  may  bathe  a  child  on  the 
third  day  (after  the  circumcision),  even  if  it  fall  on  a  Sabbath  ;  for 
it  is  written  [Genesis  xxxiv.  25]  :  "  And  it  came  to  pass  on  the 
third  day,  when  they  were  sore."  On  account  of  a  doubtful 
child  (a  child  about  which  there  is  a  doubt  whether  it  was  born 
in  the  eighth  month  of  its  gestation,  and  is  therefore  not  ex- 
pected to  live)  or  an  hermaphrodite,  the  Sabbath  (-rest)  must  not 
be  desecrated.  R.  Jchudah  permits  this  in  the  case  of  an  her- 
maphrodite. 


300  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

GEMARA:  The  Mishna  commences  by  saying:  "  One  may 
bathe  the  child,"  and  then  goes  on  to  say  that  it  may  only  be 
sprinkled  by  hand.  That  is  not  bathing!  Said  Rabha :  "  The 
Mishna  means  to  state,  that  a  child  may  be  bathed  as  usual  on 
the  day  of  circumcision,  either  before  or  after  the  performance 
of  the  rite;  but  on  the  third  day  after  circumcision,  if  that  day 
should  be  a  Sabbath,  one  may  only  sprinkle  the  child  by  hand, 
and  not  bathe  it  in  a  vessel."  R.  Elazar  ben  Azariah,  however, 
said,  that  even  if  the  third  day  fall  on  a  Sabbath  the  child  may 
be  bathed  as  usual,  as  it  is  written  [Gen.  xxxiv.  15]  :  "  And  it 
came  to  pass  on  the  third  day,  when  they  were  sore." 

When  R.  Dimi  came  from  Palestine,  he  said  in  the  name  of 
R.  Elazar,  that  the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Elazar  ben 
Azariah.  In  the  West  the  question  was  discussed  whether  R. 
Elazar  ben  Azariah  meant  that  the  whole  body  of  the  child 
might  be  bathed,  or  whether  the  part  circumcised  only  might  be 
bathed.  Said  one  of  the  rabbis,  whose  name  was  R.  Jacob:  "  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  whole  body  is  meant,  because  if  the  wound 
only  was  meant,  wherein  does  the  wound  caused  by  circumcision 
differ  from  any  other  wound  ?  Any  wound  may  be  bathed  on 
the  Sabbath  in  water  and  oil,  according  to  Rabh's  opinion." 
This  was  opposed  by  R.  Joseph :  "  Is  it  immaterial  whether  the 
water  was  warmed  on  the  Sabbath  or  before  the  Sabbath?" 
This  was  again  opposed  by  R.  Dimi :  "  Whence  dost  thou  know 
that  the  Mishna  refers  to  water  that  was  warmed  on  Sabbath, 
perhaps  they  (the  sages  and  R.  Elazar)  differ  even  as  to  water 
warmed  before  the  Sabbath  set  in  ? "  Said  Abayi :  "  I  was  pre- 
pared to  answer  this  question  myself,  but  R.  Joseph  preceded 
me  and  said,  that  of  a  necessity  the  water  must  have  been 
warmed  on  Sabbath,  because  the  precariousness  of  the  child 
demanded  it." 

We  were  also  taught,  that  when  Rabhin  came  from  Pales- 
tine, he  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Abuha  quoting  R.  Elazar,  and 
according  to  another  version,  in  the  name  of  R.  Abuha  quoting 
R.  Johanan,  that  the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Elazar 
ben  Azariah,  whether  it  be  with  water  that  was  warmed  on  the 
Sabbath  or  before  the  Sabbath,  or  whether  the  whole  body  or 
only  the  circumcised  part  is  concerned,  because  it  would  be 
dangerous  not  to  bathe  the  child  on  that  day. 

It  was  said  above  in  the  name  of  Rabh,  that  every  wound 
may  be  bathed  on  the  Sabbath  with  water  or  oil ;  but  Samuel  said 
that  water  may  be  poured  to  one  side  of  the  wound  and  it  may 


TRACT   SABBATH.  30X 

run  down  into  the  wound.  An  objection  was  made :  "  We  have 
learned,  that  oil  or  water  must  not  be  put  on  a  piece  of  cotton 
to  place  on  a  wound  ?"  This  is  prohibited  on  account  of  the 
necessity  to  wring  the  piece  of  cotton.  We  have  been  taught  by 
a  Boraitha  in  accordance  with  Samuel's  opinion;  viz.:  "  Water 
must  not  be  placed  directly  on  the  wound,  but  near  it,  that  it 
may  run  down  into  the  wound." 

The  rabbis  taught:  "  Dry  cotton  and  dry  sponge,  but  not 
dry  papyrus  or  dr>' cloth,  maybe  placed  on  a  wound."  This 
presents  a  contradiction.  Is  not  dry  cotton  the  same  as  dry 
cloth  ?  This  is  no  difficulty.  By  cloth  is  meant  new  cloth, 
which  must  not  be  used,  whereas  old  cloth  may  be.  Said 
Abayi :  "  From  this  we  see,  that  pieces  of  cloth  heal  a  wound." 

' '  On  account  of  a  doubtful  child  or  an  hermaphrodite, ' '  etc. 
The  rabbis  taught:  It  is  written  [Leviticus  xii.  3J,  "  his  fore- 
skin "  ;  so,  on  account  of  a  foreskin  which  must  be  circumcised, 
the  Sabbath  may  be  violated,  but  on  account  of  one  which  is 
doubtful  the  Sabbath  must  not  be  desecrated.  Such  also  is  the 
case  with  the  circumcision  of  the  foreskin  of  a  true  male,  but 
not  with  that  of  an  hermaphrodite.  R.  Jehudah,  however,  says, 
that  the  Sabbath  may  be  violated  on  account  of  an  hermaphro- 
dite, and  if  the  latter  is  not  circumcised  he  becomes  amenable  to 
Karath.  The  Sabbath  may  also  be  violated  on  account  of  a 
child  who  was  born  at  a  certain  time,  but  not  on  account  of  one 
who  was  born  at  twilight  (and  it  is  not  known  whether  it  was 
born  on  Sabbath  or  on  the  following  day).  It  is  not  allowed  to 
violate  the  Sabbath  on  account  of  a  child  who  was  born  without 
a  foreskin,  because  the  school  of  Shamai  (only)  contends,  that 
even  if  a  child  is  born  without  a  foreskin,  some  blood  must  be 
drawn  in  commemoration  of  the  covenant.  The  school  of 
Hillel,  however,  says,  "  That  is  not  necessar}'. "  Said  R.  Sim- 
eon ben  Elazar:  "The  school  of  Hillel  and  the  school  of 
Shamai  did  not  differ  as  to  a  child  born  without  a  foreskin ;  both 
agree  that  blood  must  be  drawn  from  it,  because  the  foreskin  is 
not  wholly  missing,  but  is  merely  ingrown.  They  differ  only  as 
regards  a  proselyte  who  was  born  without  a  foreskin.  When 
seeking  conversion,  the  school  of  Shamai  contends  that  blood 
of  the  covenant  must  be  drawn  from  his  gland,  whereas  the 
school  of  Hillel  does  not  require  this  to  be  done. 

The  Master  said :  "  On  account  of  a  doubtful  child,  the  Sab- 
bath must  not  be  desecrated."  What  docs  he  mean  by  "  doubt- 
ful "  ?      He   means  to  say,  what   we  learned   from    the    rabbis; 

VOL.   II.  — 8 


302  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

viz.:  A  child  born  in  the  seventh  month  may  have  the  Sabbath 
violated  for  it,  but  if  born  in  the  eighth  it  must  not.  If  it  is 
doubtful  whether  it  was  born  in  the  seventh  or  in  the  eighth 
month,  the  Sabbath  must  not  be  violated  on  its  account.  Not 
only  this,  but  a  child  born  in  the  eighth  month  must  not  even  be 
carried  on  the  Sabbath,  because  it  is  like  a  stone  (and  cannot 
live).  It  is  allowed,  however,  for  the  mother  to  stoop  down 
and  suckle  the  child,  because  it  is  dangerous  for  the  mother  to 
carry  too  much  milk. 

We  were  taught  that  Rabh  said  (referring  to  a  child  born 
without  a  foreskin) :  The  Halakha  prevails  according  to  the  un- 
known Tana,  while  Samuel  said,  the  Halakha  prevails  according 
to  R.  Simeon  ben  Elazar.  R.  Ada  bar  Ahabha  had  a  child  that 
was  born  without  a  foreskin ;  so  he  carried  him  to  thirteen  cir- 
cumcisers,  until  the  child  was  maimed  and  made  impotent.  Said 
he :  "I  deserve  this  fate,  because  I  did  not  follow  the  dictum  of 
Rabh."  Said  R.  Na'hman  to  him:  "  Thou  hast  not  only  dis- 
obeyed Rabh,  but  also  Samuel,  for  Samuel  said,  that  a  child 
born  without  a  foreskin  should  be  bled  only  if  it  was  born  on  a 
week-day,  but  not  on  a  Sabbath ;  and  thy  child  was  born  on  a 
Sabbath."  R.  Ada  bar  Ahabha,  however,  held,  that  he  had 
only  disobeyed  Rabh,  because,  he  was  certain  that  the  foreskin 
of  a  child  is  never  wholly  missing,  but  is  merely  ingrown  and 
should  be  lanced  even  on  Sabbath,  as  we  were  taught :  Rabba 
said,  that  there  is  fear  lest  it  bean  ingrown  foreskin;  but  R. 
Joseph  said,  that  we  were  certain  that  it  is  so.  Said  R. 
Joseph:  "  Whence  do  I  know  this  ?  From  the  following  Borai- 
tha:  R.  Elazar  Hakappar  said,  that  the  school  of  Shamai  and 
Hillel  do  not  differ  as  to  a  child  that  is  born  without  a  foreskin. 
Both  agree  that  the  blood  of  the  covenant  must  be  drawn  from 
the  gland.  The  school  of  Shamai,  however,  contends  that  this 
may  be  done  on  the  Sabbath,  while  the  other  holds  that  the 
Sabbath  must  not  be  desecrated  on  that  account.  If,  then,  R. 
Eliezer  Hakappar  holds,  that  they  differ  only  as  to  the  desecra- 
tion of  the  Sabbath,  the  first  Tana  must  hold,  that  both  schools 
agree  that  the  Sabbath  may  be  desecrated  on  that  account,  and 
in  consequence  must  also  hold,  that  the  foreskin  is  not  wholly 
missing  but  is  merely  ingrown  (hence  I  am  certain  that  it  is  so)." 

Whence  do  we  know  that  the  first  Tana  holds,  as  above, 
and  not  that  both  schools  agree  to  the  contrary;  viz. :  that  the 
Sabbath  must  not  be  desecrated  ?  If  such  would  be  the  case, 
for  what  reason  would  Hakappar  tell  us  that  Beth  Shamai  holds 


TRACT    SABBATH.  303 

that  the  Sabbath  should  be  violated  ?  The  Halakha  would  not 
prevail  thus  ?  Nay!  Perhaps  R.  Eliezer  means  to  tell  us,  prin- 
cipally, that  both  schools  hold,  that  if  a  child  is  born  without  a 
foreskin  on  a  week-day  he  must  have  his  gland  lanced  (and  inci- 
dentally mentions  that  if  a  difference  existed,  it  was  concerning 
the  Sabbath). 

R.  Assi  said:  If  a  child  be  born  of  a  woman  who,  after 
giving  birth,  must  keep  the  law  mentioned  in  Leviticus  xii.  2, 
the  child  must  be  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day;  but  in  a  case 
where  the  woman  need  not  keep  the  law  mentioned  (for  instance, 
if  the  child  was  taken  out  through  the  sides  by  means  of  instru- 
ments), or  if  the  woman  was  a  Gentile  on  the  day  of  giving 
birth  to  the  child  and  became  a  convert  to  Judaism  on  the  day 
following  (and  hence  need  not  observe  that  law),  the  child  need 
not  be  circumcised  just  on  the  eighth  day  (but  at  any  time),  as  it 
is  written  [ibid,  ibid.]:  "  If  a  woman  have  conceived  seed,  and 
bom  a  male  child:  then  shall  she  be  unclean  seven  days,"  etc., 
etc.;  [ibid.  3]:  "And  on  the  eighth  day  shall  the  flesh  of  his 
foreskin  be  circumcised."  Said  Abayi  to  him:  "What  about 
the  generations  before  the  Law  was  given  ?  The  women  knew 
nothing  of  the  law  of  uncleanness,  and  still  the  children  had  to 
be  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day  ?  "  Answered  R.  Assi :  "  Since 
the  Law  was  given,  a  new  Halakha  has  been  in  force."  Nay; 
this  is  not  so !  Have  we  not  learned,  that  if  a  child  was  taken 
through  the  side  of  a  woman,  or  if  it  had  two  foreskins,  R. 
Huna  and  R.  Hyya  bar  Rabh  entertained  different  opinions  as 
to  whether  it  should  be  circumcised  on  the  Sabbath  or  not  ?  one 
claimed  that  it  should,  and  the  other  that  it  should  not.  Now 
we  see  that  they  differed  only  as  to  a  desecration  of  the  Sab- 
bath, but  nothing  is  said  about  the  non-necessity  of  the  child's 
being  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day  ?  One  is  dependent  upon 
the  other.  (He  who  holds  that  the  Sabbath  should  be  violated, 
does  so  because  he  also  holds  that  the  child  must  be  circumcised 
on  the  eighth  day;  while  he  who  holds  that  the  Sabbath  must 
not  be  violated,  does  so  because  he  holds  that  such  a  child  need 
not  be  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day.) 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  Rabbon  Simeon  ben  Gama- 
liel said:  Every  human  child  that  has  lived  for  thirty  days  can- 
not be  called  a  miscarriage,  as  it  is  written  [Numbers  xviii.  16]  : 
"  And  those  that  are  to  be  redeemed  from  a  month  old  shalt  thou 
redeem  "  ;  and  any  young  of  an  animal  that  has  attained  the  age 
of  eight  days,   cannot  be  called   a   miscarriage,  as  it  is  written 


304  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

[Leviticus  xxii.  27] :  "  When  a  bullock,  or  a  sheep,  or  a  goat  is 
brought  forth,  then  shall  it  remain  seven  days  by  its  mother; 
and  from  the  eighth  day  and  henceforth  shall  it  be  favorably 
received,"  etc.  And  how  is  it,  if  the  child  has  not  yet  attained 
the  age  of  thirty  days,  is  it  still  a  doubtful  child  ?  How  then  is 
it  allowed  to  circumcise  any  child  on  the  Sabbath  ?  (perhaps  it  is 
a  miscarriage,  and  in  that  event  it  would  be  wrongful  to  inflict  a 
wound  in  vain).  Said  R.  Ada  bar  Ahabha:  "  We  may  do  so  at 
all  events.  If  it  is  a  regularly  born  child,  the  commandment  is 
fulfilled;  and  if  not,  no  wound  is  inflicted,  but  merely  a  piece  of 
flesh  is  cut." 

Now,  then,  we  have  learned  in  the  above  Boraitha,  that  if  it 
be  doubtful  whether  the  child  was  born  in  the  eighth  or  in  the 
seventh  month  the  Sabbath  must  not  be  violated  on  its  account. 
Why  should  this  be  so  ?  Let  it  be  circumcised  at  all  events.  If 
then  it  proves  to  be  a  regularly  born  child,  it  was  right  to  cir- 
cumcise it ;  and  if  not,  no  labor  was  performed,  but  merely  an 
incision  in  the  flesh  was  made.  Said  Mar  the  son  of  Rabhina: 
"  I  and  R.  Nehumi  bar  Zacharias  have  explained  it  thus:  '  The 
child  should  be  circumcised,  but  the  injunction  of  the  above 
Boraitha  not  to  violate  the  Sabbath  refers  to  the  preparations 
which  are  necessary  for  circumcision,  and  this  is  in  accordance 
with  the  decree  of  R.  Eliezer. '  " 

The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question :  Do  the  rabbis  differ 
with  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel,  or  do  they  not  ?  If  they  do, 
does  the  Halakha  remain  according  to  R.  Simeon,  or  not  ? 
Come  and  hear  :  R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  Samuel,  that 
the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel. 
Now  if  he  says  that  the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Sim- 
eon, there  must  be  some  who  differ  with  R.  Simeon. 

Abayi  said  :  "  If  a  child  was  killed  by  accident,  either  through 
falling  off  a  roof  or  through  being  killed  by  a  lion  before  it  had 
lived  thirty  days,  all  agree,  that  it  must  be  presumed  that  it  was 
a  regularly  born  child.  A  point  of  difference  arises  concerning 
a  child  that  had  lived  less  than  thirty  days  and  during  its  life- 
time was  very  weak  and  merely  breathing.  Some  say  that  it 
was  a  miscarriage  and  others  that  it  was  a  regularly  born  child." 
What  difference  does  it  make  ?  It  makes  a  difference  where  the 
leviratc  marriage^  is  concerned.  (If  the  child  is  presumed  to 
be  a  regularly  born  child,  it  exempts  a  man  from  the  levirate 

*  Concerning  the  law  of  levirate  marriage,  see  Deut.  xxv.  5-1 1. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  305 

marriage;  but  if  it  is  presumed  to  be  a  miscarriage,  it  does  not 
exempt  a  man.) 

Let  us  sec!  It  is  said  above,  that  if  the  child  die  by  acci- 
dent, all  agree,  that  it  is  a  regularly  born  child  ;  yet  wo  know  that 
it  happened  to  R.  Papa,  and  R.  1 1  una  the  son  of  R,  Jchoshua, 
who  were  the  guests  of  R.  Idi  bar  Abin,  that  the  latter  prepared 
for  them  a  calf,  which  was  the  third  in  birth  of  its  mother,  in  the 
seventh  day  of  its  life,  and  they  said  to  him  :  "  If  ye  had  waited 
to  kill  this  calf  until  evening  we  would  eat  of  it  (because  it 
would  then  have  been  in  its  eighth  day);  but  now  we  will  not  eat 
of  it."  Hence  we  see,  that  although  this  was  a  healthy  calf  and 
met  its  death  violently,  they  regarded  it  as  doubtful  whether  it 
was  a  miscarriage  or  not.  Hence  say,  rather,  that  on  the  con- 
trary', if  the  child  was  weak  and  barely  breathing  prior  to  its 
death,  all  agree,  that  it  must  be  presumed  to  be  a  miscarriage; 
but  they  differ  as  to  a  child  which  had  met  its  death  by  accident. 
Some  say,  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  a  regularly  born  child,  and 
others,  that  it  was  a  miscarriage. 

The  son  of  R.  Dimi  bar  Joseph  had  a  child  born  to  him  which 
died  inside  of  thirty  days,  so  he  went  into  mourning  for  it. 
Said  his  father  to  him:  "  What  wouldst  thou  ?  Eat  delicacies* 
(that  thou  sittest  in  mourning)?"  And  he  answered :  "I  am 
positive  that  the  child  was  a  regularly  born  child." 

"  R.  Jchudah  permits  this  in  the  case  of  an  hermaphrodite." 
Said  R.  Shezbi  in  the  name  of  R.  Hisda:  "  Not  in  every  case 
does  R.  Jchudah  hold  an  hermaphrodite  to  be  a  male;  for  if  we 
would  say  that  in  all  cases  he  considers  him  to  be  a  male,  the 
hermaphrodite  would  come  under  the  law  of  estimations  [Levit- 
icus xxvii.  2-15],  and  in  the  Tract  Erachim  (estimations)  we  may 
learn,  that  according  to  R.  Jchudah  he  is  exempt.  Why  is  he 
considered  a  male  as  concerns  circumcision  ?  because  it  is  written 
[Genesis  xvii.  10]:  "  Every  man  child  among  you  shall  be  cir- 
cumcised "  (and  "  every"  includes  also  hermaphrodites). 

MISHNA:  If  one  have  two  children  to  be  circumcised,  one 
after  the  Sabbath  and  the  other  on  the  Sabbath,  and  through 
forgetfulness  circumcised  the  former  on  the  Sabbath,  he  is  cul- 
pable. If  one  of  the  children,  however,  was  to  be  circumcised 
on  the  day  before  Sabbath  and  the  other  on  the  Sabbath,  and 
through  forgetfulness  one  had  the  former  circumcised  on  the 

*  It  is  a  custom  .imongst  Jews,  th.it  the  first  me.il  citen  by  a  mourner  .nfter  the 
burial  of  his  dead  must  be  given  him  by  friends  or  strangers,  and  usually  some 
delicacy  is  brought  to  him. 


3o6  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Sabbath,  R.  Eliezer  declares  him  liable  for  a  sin-offering  and  R. 
Jehoshua  declares  him  free. 

GEMARA:  R.  Huna  learns  the  Mishna  literally;  in  the 
first  case,  "he  is  culpable."  R.  Jehudah,  however,  learns  to 
the  contrary,  that  "he  is  7iot  culpable."  R.  Huna  learns  "  he 
is  culpable,"  from  what  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha;  viz.: 
Said  R.  Simeon  ben  Elazar:  "  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Jehoshua  do 
not  differ  as  to  the  case  where  a  man  has  two  children  to  be  cir- 
cumcised, one  after  the  Sabbath  and  the  other  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  through  forgetfulness  circumcised  the  former  on  Sabbath. 
They  both  declare  him  culpable.  Their  point  of  difference  is, 
if  one  of  the  children  was  to  have  been,  circumcised  on  the  day 
before  Sabbath  and  the  other  on  the  Sabbath,  and  through  for- 
getfulness the  former  was  circumcised  on  the  Sabbath,  the 
former  declares  him  culpable  and  the  latter  free.  Both  of  them 
derived  their  decrees  from  the  law  concerning  idolatry  (all  sin- 
offerings  are  based  upon  the  sin-offerings  incidental  to  the  laws 
of  idolatry).  R.  Eliezer  holds,  that  as  in  idolatry  so  also  it  is 
with  the  Sabbath.  If  the  commandment  is,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
do  so,"  and  the  man  did  so,  he  is  liable  for  a  sin-offering;  and 
R.  Jehoshua  says:  "  Here  it  is  different.  The  intention  was  to 
fulfil  a  commandment,  and  if  accidentally  it  was  not  done  he 
should  be  free." 

And  R.  Jehudah  learns  the  Mishna"  not  culpable,"  deriving 
his  support  from  the  following  Boraitha:  R.  Meir  said:  "  R. 
Eliezer  and  R.  Jehoshua  do  not  differ  as  to  the  case  where  a 
man  has  two  children  to  be  circumcised,  one  before  the  Sabbath 
and  the  other  on  the  Sabbath,  and  through  forgetfulness  circum- 
cised the  former  on  Sabbath.  They  both  declare  him  not  cul- 
pable. Their  point  of  difference  is,  if  one  of  the  children  was 
to  be  circumcised  on  the  day  after  Sabbath  and  the  other  on 
Sabbath,  and  through  forgetfulness  the  former  was  circumcised 
on  the  Sabbath,  R.  Eliezer  declares  him  culpable  and  R.  Je- 
hoshua declares  him  free.  Both  of  them  derived  their  decrees 
from  the  law  concerning  idolatry,  as  is  said  above." 

MISHNA:  A  child  may  be  (legally)  circumcised  on  the 
eighth,  ninth,  tenth,  eleventh,  or  twelfth  day  (after  its  birth); 
but  neither  before  nor  after.  How  so  ?  Usually  (it  may  be  cir- 
cumcised) on  the  eighth ;  one  born  at  (the  evening)  twilight,  on 
the  ninth ;  one  born  at  (the  evening)  twilight  before  Sabbath,  on 
the  tenth ;  if  a  feast  day  follows  that  Sabbath  (it  may  be  circum- 
cised) on  the  eleventh;  if  both  New  Year  feast-days  follow  that 


TRACT    SABBATH.  307 

Sabbath,  on  the  twelfth.     A  sick  child  must  not  be  circumcised 
until  it  is  thoroughly  recovered. 

GEMARA:  Said  Samuel:  "After  the  fever  has  left  the 
child,  seven  days  should  be  allowed  to  elapse  until  the  child  get 
well,  before  the  circumcision  is  performed."  The  schoolmen 
propounded  a  question:  Must  every  day  be  of  twenty-four 
hours'  duration,  or  may  the  last  of  the  seven  days  be  counted  if 
only  a  few  hours  have  passed  ?  Come  and  hear:  Luda  taught, 
the  last  day  of  the  child's  convalescence  is  more  important  than 
the  day  of  its  birth ;  for  a  child  may  be  circumcised  on  the 
eighth  day  after  its  birth,  even  if  only  one  hour  of  that  day  be 
passed ;  but  the  seventh  day  of  its  convalescence  after  a  sick- 
ness must  be  one  of  fully  twenty-four  hours,  before  circumcision 
is  permitted. 

MISHNA:  The  following  principal  excrescences  (knobs) 
make  the  circumcision  invalid  :  Flesh  that  covers  the  larger  part 
of  the  gland  (of  the  organ).  A  man  so  circumcised  must  not  (if 
he  be  a  priest)  partake  of  Terumah  (heave-offerings).  If  the 
child  be  very  fleshy  and  (such  imperfect  circumcision)  is  caused 
thereby,  the  knobs  must,  for  appearances'  sake,  be  cut  away. 
One  who  was  circumcised  without  having  had  the  skin  torn 
open,  is  considered  as  uncircumcised. 

GEMARA  :  R.  Abbina  in  the  name  of  R.  Jeremiah  bar  Aba, 
quoting  Rabh,  said:  "  By  stating  '  flesh,  that  covers  the  larger 
part  of  the  gland,'  the  Mishna  means  to  say  the  '  upper  part  of 
the  gland.'  " 

"  If  the  child  be  very  fleshy.''  We  have  learned  in  a  Bo- 
raitha:  "  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  said:  '  If  the  gland  of  the 
child  be  surrounded  by  a  fleshy  coating,  and  when  erect  the 
gland  appears  to  be  circumcised,  the  coating  need  not  be  cut 
away;  but  if  it  does  not  appear  to  be  circumcised,  the  coating 
should  be  cut  away.'  " 

"  One  who  was  circumcised  tvithout  having  had  the  skin  torn 
open,''  etc.  The  rabbis  taught :  The  benediction  to  be  pronounced 
by  the  circumciser  (before  performing  the  rite)  should  be  as  fol- 
lows: "  Praised  art  Thou,  Lord,  our  God,  King  of  the  Universe, 
who  hast  sanctified  us  with  Thy  commandments  and  hast  com- 
manded us  the  circumcision."  The  father  of  the  child  should 
pronounce  the  following  benediction  (in  the  interval  between  the 
circumcision  and  the  tearing  open  of  the  skin) :  "  Who  hast  sanc- 
tified us  with  Thy  commandments  and  hast  commanded  us  to 
enter  the  child  into  the  covenant  of  Abraham  our  father."    The 


3cS  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

bystanders  must  respond:  "As  he  hath  been  entered  into  the 
covenant,  so  may  he  also  be  entered  into  the  Law,  into  the  bridal 
canopy,  and  into  good  deeds."  The  man  who  makes  the  bene- 
diction (over  the  goblet  of  wine)  should  say  as  follows :  "  Blessed 
art  Thou,  etc.,  who  hast  sanctified  Thy  favored  one  (meaning  the 
patriarch  Isaac,  see  Genesis  xxii.  2)  even  in  the  womb  (as  it  is 
written  in  Genesis  xvii.  19:  '  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant 
with  him  '),  wlio  hath  made  a  sign  in  his  body,  and  hath  sealed 
his  children  with  the  sign  of  the  holy  covenant.  Therefore  as 
a  reward  for  this  we  pray  Thee,  Thou  living  God,  to  command 
that  our  children  be  saved  from  the  grave  because  of  the  cove- 
nant that  is  sealed  in  our  flesh.  Blessed  art  Thou,  O  Lord,  who 
hast  made  the  covenant."  One  who  circumcises  proselytes 
must  say:  "  Blessed  art  Thou,  etc.,  and  hast  commanded  us  the 
circumcision."  The  one  who  pronounces  the  benediction  (over 
the  goblet)  must  say:  "  Blessed  art  Thou,  etc.,  and  hast  com- 
manded us  to  circumcise  the  proselytes,  and  to  draw  from  them 
blood  of  the  covenant.  For  were  it  not  for  the  blood  of  the 
covenant,  heavens  and  earth  would  not  exist,  as  it  is  written 
[Jeremiah  xxxiii.  25]  :  *  If  not  my  covenant  by  day  and  night, 
I  would  not  have  instituted  the  ordinances  of  heaven  and  earth.' 
Blessed  be  Thou,  O  Lord,  who  didst  make  the  covenant."  One 
who  circumcises  slaves  pronounces  the  same  prayer  as  is  used 
for  proselytes,  inserting  "  slaves  "  where  "  proselytes  "  is  used; 
and  the  one  making  the  benediction  does  likewise. 


CHAPTER    XX. 

REGULATIONS  CONCERNING    CERTAIN    ACTS   OK    LABOR    WHICH    MUST    BE 
PERKORMED    DIFFERENTLY    ON    A    SABBATH    AND    ON    A    FESTIVAL. 

MISHNA:  R.  Eliezer  says:  One  may  stretch  a  wine-filter 
(of  cloth)  over  a  vessel  on  a  feast-day,  and  on  the  Sabbath  one 
may  pour  wine  into  it,  if  it  was  already  fastened  (to  the  vessel). 
The  sages  say:  One  must  not  stretch  it  (over  a  vessel)  on  a 
feast-day,  and  on  Sabbath  one  must  not  pour  (wine)  into  it,  but 
the  latter  act  is  allowed  on  a  feast-day. 

GEMARA:  How  is  it  possible  that  R.  Eliezer  should  decide, 
that  one  may  stretch  a  wine-filter,  etc.,  on  a  festival,  if  he  docs 
not  even  allow  a  window-blind  to  be  added  to  a  temporary  tent, 
as  is  explained  by  Rabba  bar  bar  Hana  in  the  name  of  R. 
Johanan  [Chapter  XVH.,  p.  272].  In  that  case  he  does  not 
even  allow  the  addition  of  a  blind,  and  here  he  permits  the 
stretching  of  a  filter  to  commence  with  ?  R.  Eliezer  holds  as 
R.  Jehudah,  as  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha :  There  is  no  dif- 
ference between  the  Sabbath  and  the  festival,  except  that  the 
preparation  of  food  is  permitted  on  the  latter.  R.  Jehudah, 
however,  even  permits  the  arrangements  for  the  preparation  of 
food.  What  arrangements  for  the  preparation  of  food  are  we 
aware  of,  that  R.  Jehudah  permits  ?  Such  as  cannot  be  made  at 
any  time  before  the  festival ;  but  did  we  hear  of  his  permitting 
the  arrangements  for  the  preparation  of  food  that  could  be  made 
before  the  festival,  to  be  made  on  the  feast-day  ?  In  this  respect 
R.  Eliezer  is  more  lenient  than  R.  Jehudah,  for  he  permits 
all  arrangements  for  the  preparation  of  food  to  be  made  on  the 
festival. 

"  Tlie  sages  say :  One  must  not  stretch  it,"  etc.  The  school- 
men propounded  a  question  :  What  if  a  man  did  stretch  the 
filter  over  a  vessel  on  a  festival  ?  Is  he  culpable  ?  Said  Abayi : 
"  This  is  only  a  rabbinical  prohibition,  that  one  should  not  do  on 
a  festival  such  things  as  one  docs  on  a  week-day." 

Abayi  collected  all  the  rabbinical  prohibitions  to  be  found  in 
the  Boraithas,  and  taught  as  follows:  A  leather  bag,  a  wine-filter, 

309 


3IO  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

a  baldachin,  and  a  folding-chair  as  used  in  the  city  of  Galin, 
must  not  be  spread ;  but  if  one  does  so,  he  is  not  culpable. 
Tents,  however,  which  are  permanent,  must  not  be  put  up,  and 
if  a  man  does  this  he  is  culpable.  One  may,  however,  set  up 
an  ordinary  bed,  a  chair,  a  tripod,  and  a  stool  with  impunity. 

"  One  must  not  pour  wine  into  it,''  etc.  The  schoolmen 
asked:  "What  if  a  man  did  pour  wine  into  it?  Is  he  cul- 
pable?" Said  R.  Kahana:  "Yea;  he  is  liable  to  bring  a  sin- 
offering. "  R.  Shesheth  opposed  this:  "  Have  ye  ever  seen  that 
R.  Eliezer  should  permit  a  certain  thing  to  be  done  to  com- 
mence with,  which  the  rabbis  hold  would  make  one  liable  for  a 
sin-offering  ?  "  R.  Joseph  interposed  :■  "  Why  not  ?  Have  we 
not  learned  (p.  114),  in  the  case  of  a  woman  who  went  out  with 
a  golden  ornament,  that  R.  Meir  held  her  liable  for  a  sin-offering 
and  R.  Eliezer  permitted  her  to  go  out  with  it  to  commence 
with  ? "  Said  Abayi  to  him:  "  Dost  thou  think  that  R.  Eliezer 
opposes  R.  Meir  in  the  above  passage  ?  Nay ;  he  merely  opposes 
the  sages,  who  said  that  a  woman  must  not  go  out  wearing  the 
ornament,  but  if  she  do  so,  she  is  not  culpable ;  whereas  he  says, 
that  she  may  do  so  to  commence  with." 

How  should  a  man  be  warned  not  to  pour  wine  into  the 
filter  ?  {i.e.,  in  what  category  of  labor  is  that  act  to  be  classed, 
so  that  the  man  can  be  warned  that  he  is  performing  a  certain 
prohibited  principal  act  of  labor  ?*).  Rabba  said:  "  He  is  to  be 
warned  against  fruit-cleaning."  R.  Zera  said:  "Against  sift- 
ing." Said  Rabba:  "  It  seems  to.  me  that  my  decision  is 
more  in  conformity  with  reason,  for  as  in  fruit-cleaning  the  good 
fruit  is  separated  from  the  bad,  so  it  is  also  in  this  case :  he  sepa- 
rates the  clean  wine  from  the  lees."  Said  R.  Zera:  "  It  seems 
to  me  that  my  decision  is  more  in  conformity  with  reason,  be- 
cause as  in  sifting  the  good  falls  to  the  bottom  and  the  bad 
remains  in  the  sieve,  so  it  is  also  in  this  case :  the  good  wine 
falls  into  the  vessel,  while  the  lees  remain  in  the  filter." 

Rami  the  son  of  Ezekiel  taught:  "  A  folded  garment  should 
not  be  spread  on  poles  to  serve  as  a  sun-shade;  but  if  a  man  do 
this,  he  is  free.  If,  however,  a  string  or  a  hanger  was  already 
attached  to  the  garment  with  which  it  could  be  fastened  to  the 
poles,  this  may  be  done  to  commence  with," 

R.  Kahana  asked  of  Rabh :  "  What  is  the  law  regarding  a 
baldachin?"  and  he  answered:  "  Even  a  bed  is  not  permitted." 

*  See  Chapter  VII.,  note  to  page  138. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  311 

R.  Kahana  then  inquired:  "What  is  the  law  regarding  a 
bed?"  and  Rabh  answered:  "  Even  a  baldachin  is  allowed." 
"  What  is  the  law  regarding  a  bed  and  a  baldachin  ?  "  "A  bed 
is  allowed  but  a  baldachin  is  not  allowed."  In  spite  of  this, 
there  is  no  difficulty.  In  not  permitting  even  a  bed,  Rabh  had 
reference  to  a  folding-bed  as  used  by  the  Karmanites,  and  where 
he  said,  "  Even  a  baldachin  is  allowed,"  he  had  reference  to  a 
baldachin  as  described  by  Rami  bar  Ezekiel;  i.e.,  one  which 
had  strings  attached  to  it.  In  saying,  "  A  bed  is  allowed  and  a 
baldachin  is  not  allowed,"  he  meant  to  say,  that  an  ordinary 
bed,  such  as  is  generally  used,  may  be  set  up,  but  a  baldachin, 
that  had  no  strings  or  hangers  attached,  must  not  be  set  up. 
Said  R.  Joseph :  "  I  have  seen  the  baldachins  in  the  house  of  R. 
Huna;  at  night  (on  Sabbath  eve)  they  were  folded  up  and  in  the 
morning  they  were  all  set  up." 

Rami  bar  Ezekiel  sent  to  R.  Huna  and  asked  him  to  impart 
to  him  some  of  the  good  sayings  of  Rabh,  two  concerning  the 
Sabbath  and  one  concerning  the  Law.  So  R.  Huna  sent  him 
the  following  sayings:  Concerning  what  we  have  learned  in  a 
Boraitha,  that  a  leather-bag  which  had  strings  already  attached 
may  be  spread  on  poles  on  Sabbath,  Rabh  said,  that  this  may 
be  done  jointly  by  two  men  but  not  by  one.*  Said  Abayi :  "  A 
baldachin  which  must  not  be  set  up  must  not  even  be  set  up 
by  the  joint  efforts  of  ten  men."  What  was  the  other  good  say- 
ing of  Rabh  concerning  Sabbath  ?  Concerning  what  we  have 
learned  in  a  Boraitha,  that  if  an  iron  stove  had  one  leg  missing 
it  may  be  handled,  but  if  two  legs  were  missing  it  must  not  be 
handled,  Rabh  said,  that  it  must  not  be  handled  even  if  one 
leg  was  missing,  as  a  precaution  lest  one  might  be  tempted  to 
fasten  the  missing  leg,  and  that  would  constitute  building. 
What  was  the  good  saying  of  Rabh  concerning  the  Law  ?  Rabh 
said :  There  will  be  a  time  when  the  Law  will  be  forgotten  by 
Israel,  as  it  is  written  [Deut.  xxviii.  59]  :  "  Then  will  the  Lord 
render  wonderful  thy  plagues,"  etc.,  and  I  could  not  under- 
stand what  is  meant  by  "  wonderful  plagues  "  ;  but  it  is  written 
[Isaiah  xxix.  14]:  "  Therefore,  behold,  I  will  do  yet  farther  a 
marvellous  work,  doing  wonder  on  wonder,  so  that  the  wisdom 
of  their  wise  men  shall  be  lost,  and  the  understanding  of  their 
prudent  men  shall  be  hidden." 

*  Rashi  remarks  that,  although  some  explanation  for  this  passage  was  ventured 
upon  by  the  Gaonim,  still  he  does  not  understand  it  himself,  and  hence  can  give  no 
satisfactory  explanation. 


312  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

The  rabbis  taught :  When  our  teachers  went  into  the  vine- 
yard at  Jamnia,  they  said  that  the  Law  would  be  forgotten  by 
Israel,  as  it  is  written  [Amos  viii.  ii] :  "  Behold,  days  are  com- 
ing, saith  the  Lord  Eternal,  when  I  will  send  a  famine  in  the 
land,  not  a  famine  for  bread,  nor  a  thirst  for  water,  but  to  hear 
the  words  of  the  Lord  "  ;  and  [ibid.  12]  :  "  And  they  will  wan- 
der about  from  sea  to  sea,  and  from  the  north  even  to  the  east, 
they  will  roam  about  to  seek  the  word  of  the  Lord ;  but  they 
shall  not  find  it."  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  is  meant :  Halakha, 
the  end  of  exile  {i.e.,  the  coming  of  the  Messiah),  and  also  the 
prophecies.* 

In  another  Boraitha  we  have  learned :  R.  Simeon  ben  Jo'hai 
said :  "  May  God  forbid  that  the  Law  be  forgotten  by  Israel.  It 
is  written  [Deut.  xxxi.  21] :  *  For  it  shall  not  be  forgotten  out 
of  the  mouth  of  their  seed.*  How  then  can  the  previous  pas- 
sage, *  And  they  will  roam  about  to  seek  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
but  they  shall  not  find  it,'  be  verified  ?  It  means  they  shall  not 
find  a  perfect  Halakha  (which  shall  be  incontestable),  nor  a 
Mishna  (which  shall  be  beyond  refutation)  anywhere  on  earth." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  If  thou  shouldst  live  in  a 
generation  in  which  there  is  much  trouble  (persecution),  go  and 
investigate  amongst  the  judges  of  Israel;  for  most  of  the  trouble 
that  happens  in  this  world  happens  only  on  account  (of  the  cor- 
ruption) of  the  judges,  as  it  is  written  [Micah  iii.  9-1 1]:  "  Hear 
this,  I  pray  you,  ye  heads  of  the  house  of  Jacob  and  ye  princes 
of  the  house  of  Israel,  that  abhor  justice  and  make  crooked  all 
that  is  straight.  They  build  up  Zion  with  blood-guiltiness  and 
Jerusalem  with  wrong;  her  heads  judge  for  bribes,  and  her 
priests  teach  for  reward,  and  her  prophets  divine  for  money,  and 
yet  will  they  lean  upon  the  Lord,"  etc.  They  are  all  wicked, 
and  yet  they  all  lean  upon  the  One  who  spoke  and  the  world  was 
created;  and  therefore  the  Lord  will  bring  upon  them  three 
troubles  for  the  three  sins  of  which  they  were  guilty  as  men- 
tioned above  (judging  for  bribes,  teaching  for  reward,  and  divin- 
ing for  money),  as  it  is  written  [ibid.  12] :  "  Therefore  for  your 
sake  shall  Zion  be  ploughed  up  as  a  field,  and  Jerusalem  shall 


*  Rashi  explains  the  above  passage  as  follows  :  That  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  is 
meant  Halakha,  may  be  derived  from  the  verse  [Deut.  v.  5],  "  To  announce  to  you 
the  word  of  the  Lord,"  which  is  synonymous  with  Halakha.  As  for  the  end  of  e.\ile 
also  being  part  of  the  word  of  the  Lord,  I  do  not  know  what  verse  that  can  be  based 
on.  That  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  is  also  meant  the  prophecies,  can  be  inferred  from 
the  verse  [Hosea  i.  i]:  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  that  came  unto  Hosea." 


TRACT    SABBATH.  313 

become  ruinous  heaps,  and  the  mount  of  the  house,  forest-cov- 
ered high-places";  and  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He,  will  not 
permit  his  Shekhina  to  rest  again  amongst  Israel  until  the  cor- 
rupt judges  shall  be  removed  and  the  guardians  of  the  peace 
shall  be  abolished  from  Israel,  as  it  is  written  [Isaiah  i.  25  and 
26] :  "  And  I  will  turn  my  hand  against  thee,  and  purge  away  as 
with  lye  thy  dross,  and  remove  all  thy  tin.  And  (then)  I  will 
restore  thy  judges  as  at  the  first,  and  thy  counsellors  as  at  the 
beginning." 

Ula  said:  "  Jerusalem  will  not  be  redeemed  except  through 
charity  (righteousness),  as  it  is  written  [Isaiah  i.  27] :  '  Zion  shall 
be  redeemed  through  justice,  and  her  converts  through  righteous- 
ness.'"  R.  Papa  said:  When  the  proud  men  will  be  de- 
stroyed, then  also  will  the  men  who  slander  and  cause  us  to  be 
hated  be  destroyed,  as  it  is  written:  "  and  purge  away  as  with 
lye  thy  dross."  And  when  the  corrupt  judges  will  be  removed, 
the  bailiffs  will  also  become  extinct,  as  it  is  written  [Zephaniah 
iii.  15]:  "The  Lord  hath  removed  thy  punishment;  he  hath 
cleared  away  thy  enemy." 

Melai  in  the  name  of  R.  Eliezcr  ben  R.  Simeon  said:  "  It  is 
written  [Isaiah  xiv.  5]  :  '  Broken  hath  the  Lord  the  staff  of  the 
wicked,  the  sceptre  of  the  rulers.'  The  staff  of  the  wicked 
refers  to  the  judges  who  made  of  themselves  a  staff  upon  which 
their  servants  (scribes)  should  lean  {i.e.,  they  gave  them  all  the 
opportunities  to  extort  money,  of  which  they  took  a  share). 
The  sceptre  of  rulers  refers  to  the  judges  who  made  their  rela- 
tives rulers." 

Mar  Zutra  said:  "The  above  verse  refers  to  the  teachers 
who  turn  out  ignorant  men  and  allow  them  licenses  to  be  judges 
(and  through  ignorance  they  were  incapable  of  judging  right- 
fully)." 

R.  Elazar  ben  Melai  said  in  the  name  of  Resh  Lakish :  "  It 
is  written  [Isaiah  lix.  3]  : '  For  your  hands  are  defiled  with  blood, 
and  your  fingers  with  iniquity:  your  lips  have  spoken  falsehood, 
your  tongue  uttereth  deception.'  '  Your  hands  are  defiled  with 
blood  '  refers  to  the  judges,  '  your  fingers  with  iniquity  '  refers 
to  the  scribes  of  the  judges,  '  your  lips  have  spoken  falsehood  ' 
refers  to  the  lawyers,  '  and  your  tongue  uttereth  deception  ' 
refers  to  the  litigants  themselves." 

R.  Melai  said  again  in  the  name  of  R.  Itz'hak  of  Magdala : 
"  From  the  day  tliat  Joseph  left  his  brethren,  he  tasted  not 
wine,  as  it  is  written  [Genesis  xlix.  26]  :  '  These  shall  be  on  the 


314  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

head  of  Joseph,  on  the  crown  of  the  head  of  him  that  was  sep- 
arated* from  his  brothers.'  "  R.  Jose  bar  Hanina  said,  that  the 
brothers  of  Joseph  also  did  not  taste  wine,  because  it  is  written 
[ibid,  xliii.  34]  :  "  And  they  drank,  and  were  merry  with  him  " 
(because  it  says  "  with  him,"  the  inference  is,  that  without  him 
they  did  not  drink). 

R.  Melai  said  again:  "  The  reward  due  Aaron  for  what  is 
written  [Exod.  iv.  14] :  'And  when  he  seeth,  he  will  be  glad  in 
his  heart,'  was  given  him  in  the  breastplate  of  judgment  "  [see 
ibid,  xxviii.  15]. 

The  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Bashkar  sent  a  query  to  Levi, 
as  follows:  "  What  is  the  law  concerning  a  baldachin,  what  is 
the  law  concerning  flax  sown  in  a  vineyard,  does  it  come  under 
the  head  of  Kelaim  or  not,  and  what  is  the  law  concerning  one 
who  dies  on  a  festival  ?  "  While  the  messenger  was  on  his  way, 
Levi  died.  Said  Samuel  to  R.  Menasseh:  "If  thou  wouldst 
be  wise,  answer  thou  these  queries."  So  R.  Menasseh  answered 
as  follows:  "As  for  a  baldachin,  we  have  investigated  on  all 
sides  and  found  no  permission  (for  setting  it  up).  As  for  flax 
sown  in  a  vineyard,  it  constitutes  a  case  of  Kelaim.  As  for  a 
man  that  had  died  on  a  festival,  the  corpse  should  be  kept  until 
after  the  second  day  of  the  festival,  and  it  should  not  be  in- 
terred, neither  by  Israelites  nor  by  Gentiles."  This  is  not  so! 
Rami  bar  Ezekiel  found  permission  for  a  baldachin  as  previously 
said !  R.  Tarphon  decided  that  flax  sown  in  a  vineyard  does  not 
constitute  Kelaim,  and  Rabha  decreed,  that  a  corpse  may  be 
interred  on  the  first  day  of  a  festival  by  Gentiles  and  on  the  sec- 
ond day  even  by  Jews  ?  However,  because  the  men  of  Bashkar 
were  ignorant,  R.  Menasseh  gave  them  the  stricter  decrees,  lest 
they  take  advantage  of  the  more  lenient. 

R.  Abin  bar  R.  Huna  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Hama  bar 
Gurya :  "  A  man  can  wrap  himself  in  the  canopy  that  has  not 
been  fastened  to  the  poles,  together  with  its  fringes,  and  go  out 
into  public  ground  with  impunity."  In  what  respect  does  this 
decision  differ  from  that  of  R.  Huna,  who  said  in  the  name  of 
Rabh,  that  one  who  went  out  into  public  ground  wearing  a 
Talith  (toga)  without  Tzitzith  (show-threads)  is  culpable  and 
liable  for  a  sin-offering  ?  In  the  case  of  a  Talith,  the  show- 
threads,  being  the   most   important   part   of  that   garment,   are 


*  "  Separated  "  is  expressed  by  the  word  Nazir,  which  means  also  one  who  has 
vowed  to  drink  no  wine. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  315 

valuable,  and  without  them  the  Talith  is  simply  a  burden; 
whereas  the  fringes  of  a  canopy  are  not  an  essential  part  of  the 
canopy,  and  having  used  the  latter  for  a  garment  it  may  be  worn 
even  with  fringes. 

Rabba  bar  R.  Huna  said :  "  A  man  may  with  cunning  stretch 
a  wine-filter  over  a  vessel  and  say,  that  he  intends  to  use  it  as  a 
receptacle  for  pomegranates,  but  when  it  is  already  stretched  he 
may  filter  wine  through  it,"  Said  R.  Ashi :  "  He  may  do  this 
only  if  he  had  previously  placed  pomegranates  in  the  filter."  In 
what  respect  does  this  decision  differ  from  the  following  Bo- 
raitha:  During  the  intermediate  days  of  a  festival  (either  Pass- 
over or  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles)  a  man  may  brew  beer  for  con- 
sumption on  those  days  but  not  for  use  on  other  days,  be  it 
beer  made  of  dates  or  of  barley;  and  although  he  have  stale 
beer  still  on  hand,  he  may  with  cunning  brew  new  beer  and 
drink  it,  (Should  he  have  any  left  over  he  may  keep  it  for  other 
days;  hence  we  see  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  dissemble  by 
doing  something  else  before  performing  the  act  really  intended.) 
In  the  latter  case  it  is  not  known  whether  the  man  have  any 
stale  beer  on  hand  or  not,  and  hence  it  might  be  presumed  that 
he  has  none  and  must  brew  more;  but  in  the  former  case,  when 
the  wine-filter  is  stretched  and  wine  is  being  immediately  filtered 
through  it,  the  presumption  would  be  that  it  was  stretched  for 
that  purpose  only. 

Said  the  disciples  to  R.  Ashi:  "  We  would  call  the  attention 
of  the  master  to  this  young  scholar,  R.  Huna  bar  Hj'van  or 
Heluvan  by  name,  who  takes  the  clove  of  garlic  and  stops  up  a 
hole  in  a  wine-barrel  with  it,  saying,  that  he  intends  merely  to 
preserve  the  clove  of  garlic.  He  also  goes  and  lies  down  on  a 
ferr>',  presumably  to  sleep;  in  the  meantime  he  is  ferried  across 
the  river,  and  on  the  other  side  he  watches  his  fields,  saying, 
however,  that  he  merely  intended  to  sleep."  Answered  R. 
Ashi :  "  Ye  speak  of  cunning  (trickery').  All  the  acts  mentioned 
by  you  are  prohibited  by  rabbinical  laws  only,  and  in  the  case  of 
a  scholar,  there  is  no  danger  that  he  will  commit  them  publicly 
(without  resorting  to  cunning)." 

MISHNA:  One  may  pour  water  on  yeast  in  order  to  thin 
the  latter;  and  one  may  filter  wine  through  a  cloth  or  an  Egyp- 
tian wine-basket.  One  may  put  a  beaten  egg  in  a  mustard 
sieve.  One  may  also  make  honey-wine  on  Sabbath.  R.  Jehu- 
dah  says:  "On  Sabbath  this  maybe  done  only  in  a  cup,  on 
feast-days  even  in  a  lug  (pitcher),  and  on  the  intermediate  days 


3i6  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

even  in  a  barrel,"      R.  Zadok  says:  "  At  all  times  it  should  be 
made  according  to  the  number  of  guests." 

GEMARA:  Zera  said:  "A  man  may  pour  clear  wine  or 
clear  water  into  a  filter  with  impunity."  May  clear  wine  only, 
and  not  dimmed  wine,  be  poured  into  a  filter  ?  Have  we  not 
learned,  that  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  said:  "  A  man  may  stir 
up  a  cask  of  wine,  with  the  lees,  on  the  Sabbath  and  pour  it 
through  a  filter  with  impunity"?  Zera  explained  the  decree  of 
R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  to  the  effect,  that  the  latter  spoke  of 
wine  that  was  just  being  pressed,  when  it  is  customary  to  drink 
the  wine  with  the  lees  (hence  the  wine  is  not  improved,  as  it  can 
be  drunk  without  filtering). 

"  One  may  filter  wine  through  a  cloth."  R.  Simi  b.  Hyya 
said :  "  Providing  the  cloth  is  not  turned  into  a  funnel  (that  the 
cloth  should  not  subsequently  be  wrung)." 

"  An  Egyptian  wine-basket."  Said  R.  Hyya  bar  Ashi  in  the 
name  of  Rabh  :  "  Providing  the  wine-basket  is  not  lifted  above 
the  bottom  of  the  vessel  to  the  height  of  one  span." 

One  may  put  a  beaten  egg  in  a  mustard  sieve."  R.  Jacob 
Kar'hah  explained  this  as  follows  :  "  Because  the  yolk  is  used 
only  for  coloring;  the  white  of  the  egg  is  nevertheless  as  much 
an  article  of  food  as  the  yolk  (hence  no  sifting  takes  place)." 

It  was  taught:  Mustard  which  had  been  prepared  before 
Sabbath  may  be  ground  on  the  Sabbath,  either  by  hand  or  with 
a  vessel.  Honey  may  also  be  placed  in  the  mustard  on  Sabbath  ; 
it  must  not  be  thoroughly  mixed,  however,  but  merely  stirred. 
Cresses  which  had  been  cut  up  before  the  Sabbath  may  be 
mixed  with  oil  and  vinegar  on  the  Sabbath,  and  one  may  also 
add  mint;  it  must  not  be  thoroughly  mixed,  however,  but 
merely  stirred.  Garlic  which  had  been  ground  before  the  Sab- 
bath may  be  mixed  with  broad-beans  and  peas,  but  must  not  be 
ground  together;  mint  may  also  be  added.  Said  Abayi :  "  We 
see,  that  mint  is  good  for  the  spleen." 

One  may  make  honey-wine  on  the  Sabbath."  The  rabbis 
taught:  "  One  may  make  honey-wine  on  the  Sabbath,  but  not 
an  oil-wine  salve."  The  difference  between  honey-wine  and  oil- 
wine  salve  is  that  the  former  is  made  of  honey,  wine,  and  pep- 
per, while  the  latter  is  made  of  old  wine,  clear  water,  and  aro- 
matic balsam  to  be  used  as  a  lotion  after  a  bath. 

Said  R.  Joseph:  "  Once  I  went  with  Mar  Uqba  to  a  bath- 
house. When  we  came  out,  he  gave  me  a  cup  of  wine  which, 
when  drinking,  I  felt  all  over  from  the  roots  of  my  hair  to  the 


TRACT    SABBATH.  317 

nails  of  my  feet ;  and  had  he  given  me  another,  I  am  afraid  that 
the  reward  due  me  in  the  world  to  come  would  have  been  less- 
ened in  proportion."  Mar  Uqba  drank  this  wine  every  day  ? 
He  was  accustomed  to  it. 

MISHNA:  One  must  not  put  laserpitium  in  tepid  water 
for  the  purpose  of  softening  the  former,  but  one  may  put  it  in 
vinegar.  One  must  not  soak  bran  nor  grind  it,  but  may  put  it 
in  a  sieve  or  in  a  basket.  One  must  not  sift  feed-straw  through 
a  winnow,  nor  lay  it  in  a  high  place  so  that  the  chaff  fall  out, 
but  one  may  take  it  up  in  a  winnow  and  then  pour  it  into  the 
crib. 

GEMARA:  The  schoolmen  asked:  "  What  if  one  did  put 
laserpitium  in  tepid  water?"  Said  Abayi :  "This  is  only  a 
rabbinical  prohibition,  that  it  should  not  be  done  as  on  a  week- 
day." 

R.  Johanan  asked  of  R.  Yanai:  "  Is  it  allowed  to  put  laser- 
pitium in  cold  water  (on  Sabbath)  ?"  and  he  answered:  "  It  is 
not."  Said  R.  Johanan:  "We  have  learned  in  the  Mishna, 
that  it  is  not  allowed  to  put  it  in  tepid  water,  but  in  cold  water 
it  should  be  allowed."  Answered  R.  Yanai:  (If  thou  askest 
me  concerning  a  Mishna)  what  difference  is  there  between  me 
and  thee  ?  The  Mishna  is  according  to  the  opinion  of  one  man, 
and  the  Halakha  does  not  prevail  according  to  his  opinion,  as  we 
have  learned  in  a  Tosephta:  Laserpitium  must  not  be  put  in 
either  cold  or  tepid  water.  R.  Jose  said :  "  It  is  not  allowed  to 
put  it  in  tepid  water,  but  it  maybe  put  in  cold  water."  For 
what  purpose  is  it  used  ?     For  a  heavy  feeling  in  the  chest, 

R.  Aha  bar  Joseph  had  a  heavy  feeling  in  the  chest,  so  he 
came  to  Mar  Uqba,  and  was  told  to  drink  laserpitium  to  the 
weight  of  three  shekels  in  three  days.  He  drank  some  on  Thurs- 
day and  Friday,  and  on  Sabbath  he  came  to  the  house  of  learn- 
ing to  inquire  whether  he  might  drink  it.  He  was  told,  that  the 
disciples  of  Ada,  others  say  of  Mar  bar  R.  Ada,  taught,  that 
one  may  drink  even  a  Kabh  or  two  Kabhs  with  impunity.  He 
then  said  to  them:  "  I  am  not  asking  whether  I  may  drink  it. 
That  I  know  is  allowed,  but  I  should  like  to  know  whether  I 
may  put  the  laserpitium  in  water  in  order  to  drink  it.  How 
shall  I  do?"  Said  R.  Hyya  bar  Abin  to  them:  "The  same 
thing  happened  to  me,  so  I  went  to  R.  Ada  bar  Ahabha  and 
asked  him,  but  he  did  not  know;  so  I  asked  R.  Huna,  who 
said,  that  Rabh  decided  that  first  it  should  be  put  in  cold  water 
and  then  it  may  be  put  in  warm  water." 
VOL.  11. — 9 


3i8  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

R.  A'ha  bar  Joseph  leaned  on  the  shoulders  of  his  nephew, 
R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak,  and  went  out  into  the  street,  and  told 
him,  when  they  came  to  the  house  of  R.  Safra,  to  lead  him  in. 
When  they  got  there,  they  went  in,  and  R.  A'ha  asked  of  R. 
Safra:  "Maya  shirt  that  had  been  laundered  too  stiffly  be 
rubbed  and  softened  by  hand  on  the  Sabbath  ?  Shall  we 
assume,  that  it  is  only  intended  to  soften  the  shirt  and  is  there- 
fore permissible,  or  that  it  is  intended  also  to  bleach  it  and  is 
hence  prohibited  ?"  R.  Safra  answered,  that  it  might  be  done, 
and  asked  him  :  "  Why  dost  thou  ask  about  a  shirt,  why  not  ask 
also  about  a  turban?"  "I  have  already  asked  concerning  a 
turban  of  R.  Huna,  and  he  said,  that  it  is  not  permitted." 
"  Why,  then,  didst  thou  come  to  ask  about  a  shirt  ?  Thou 
couldst  have  inferred,  from  the  turban,  that  the  other  was  also 
not  permitted  ?"  Answered  R.  A'ha:  "  A  turban  is  bleached 
by  unfolding  and  rubbing,  but  a  shirt  is  not." 

R.  Hisda  said:  "  If  a  shirt  had  been  hung  up  to  dry  by 
means  of  a  stick  drawn  through  the  armholes,  it  should  be  taken 
down  from  the  stick,  but  the  stick  should  not  be  taken  down 
alone  (because  the  stick  is  not  a  vessel  and  hence  must  not  be 
handled)."  SaidRabha:"  If  the  stick  was  one  that  may  be  used 
by  a  weaver,  it  may  be  taken  down  (because  it  is  regarded  as  a 
vessel)." 

R.  Hisda  said  again:  "A  bundle  of  herbs,  if  suitable  foi 
cattle-food,  may  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath.  If  not,  it  must 
not  be  handled."  Said  R.  Hyya  bar  Ashi  in  the  name  of  Rabh: 
"  Dried  salt  meat  may  be  handled  on  Sabbath  (because  it  can 
be  eaten  uncooked),  but  dried  salt  fish  must  not  (because  it  can- 
not be  eaten  uncooked)." 

R.  Hisda  said  again:  "  A  man  who  attends  school,  and  has 
not  sufficient  bread,  should  not  eat  herbs,  because  it  creates 
hunger.  I  myself  have  never  eaten  herbs,  neither  when  I  was 
poor  nor  when  I  was  rich.  When  I  was  poor  I  did  not  want  to 
stimulate  my  appetite,  and  when  I  was  rich  I  rather  ate  meat 
and  fish  in  place  of  herbs."  Again  he  said:  "  A  young  pupil 
who  lacks  food  should  not  eat  a  little  at  a  time.  He  should 
wait  until  he  can  accumulate  sufficient  for  a  hearty  meal,  and 
then  eat.  When  I  was  poor  I  never  ate  until  I  could  put  my 
hand  in  the  basket  and  find  sufficient  to  satisfy  my  hunger." 

The  same  R.  Hisda  said  to  his  daughters :  "  Be  chaste  in  the 
eyes  of  your  husbands.  Do  not  go  about  eating  in  the  presence 
of  your  husbands.      Do  not  eat  herbs  at  night  (for  fear  of  bad 


TRACT   SABBATH.  319 

breath).  Do  not  eat  dates  at  night.  Do  not  drink  beer  at  night, 
and  use  not  the  same  toilet  that  men  do.  When  some  one 
knocks  at  your  door,  do  not  ask  '  Who  is  it  ?'  in  the  masculine, 
but  in  the  feminine." 

"  On^  must  not  si/t  feed-straw  through  a  winnow."  This 
Mishna  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  the  Tana  of  the 
following  Boraitha:  R.  Eliezcr  ben  Jacob  said:  "A  winnow 
must  not  be  touched  at  all." 

MISHNA:  One  may  clean  out  (the  crib)  for  the  (stalled)  ox 
and  throw  (the  superfluous  fodder)  over  the  side,  so  that  it  does 
not  become  unclean,  so  says  R.  Dosa.  The  sages  declare  this 
to  be  prohibited.  One  may  remove  the  fodder  in  front  of  one 
animal  and  place  it  before  another,  on  the  Sabbath. 

GEMARA:  The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question:  Do  the 
sages  dissent  from  the  first  part  of  R.  Dosa's  decree,  from  the 
last  part,  or  from  both  ?  Come  and  hear:  "  We  have  learned 
in  a  Boraitha : '  The  sages  said :  "  Neither  one  nor  the  other  may 
be  thrown  over  the  side."'"  Said  R.  Hisda:  "The  sages 
differ  with  R.  Dosa  only  when  the  crib  was  a  separate  vessel, 
but  if  it  was  part  of  the  stall  and  fixed  to  the  ground,  all  agree 
that  it  is  prohibited  to  clean  it  out." 

One  may  remove  the  fodder  from  in  front  of  one  animal," 
etc.  In  one  Boraitha  we  learned,  that  one  may  remove  the  fod- 
der from  cattle  with  healthy  snouts  and  place  it  before  cattle 
with  diseased  snouts;  and  in  another  Boraitha  we  learned  the 
contrary,  that  fodder  may  be  removed  from  cattle  with  diseased 
snouts  and  placed  before  cattle  with  healthy  snouts.  Said 
Abayi :  "According  to  both  Boraithas,  the  fodder  of  an  ass 
may  be  placed  before  an  ox,  but  the  fodder  of  an  ox  must  not 
be  placed  before  an  ass.  The  first  Boraitha  refers  to  fodder 
placed  before  an  ass  who  does  not  emit  phlegm  from  the  mouth, 
and  which  may  be  placed  before  a  cow  who  does  emit  phlegm ; 
and  the  other  Boraitha,  which  permits  the  placing  of  fodder  of 
animals  with  bad  snouts,  also  refers  to  an  ass,  and  calls  the  snout 
of  an  ass  bad  (diseased)  because  he  feeds  on  all  manner  of 
things,  like  thistles,  etc.  The  cow  is  referred  to  as  having  a 
healthy  snout  because  she  is  very  particular  as  to  what  she 
feeds  on  (hence  the  two  Boraithas  do  not  differ)." 

MISHNA:  Straw  on  a  bed  must  not  be  shaken  up  with  the 
hand,  but  it  may  be  moved  with  the  body.  If  it  be  designed  for 
fodder,  or  a  pillow  or  cloth  lie  over  it,  it  may  be  shaken  up  by 
hand.      A    clothes-press   which    is    kept  in  the  house  may  be 


320  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

opened,  but  must  not  be  used  for  pressing.  The  clothes- 
presses  of  the  professional  washers  must  not  be  touched.  R. 
Jehudah  says:  "  If  the  press  was  partly  open  before  the  Sab- 
bath, it  may  be  entirely  opened  and  drawn  out  (others  say,  the 
clothes  may  be  drawn  out)." 

GEMARA:  R.  Jehudah  said:  "It  is  permitted  to  triturate 
pepper  seed  with  the  handle  of  a  knife  one  by  one,  but  not  two 
together  (on  Sabbath)."  But  Rabha  said,  that  as  a  man  usu- 
ally triturates  pepper  in  a  mortar  on  a  week-day,  he  may  on 
Sabbath  triturate  as  many  together  as  he  chooses  with  the  handle 
of  a  knife. 

R.  Jehudah  said  again:  "(On  the  Sabbath)  a  man  who 
bathes  should  first  dry  himself  standing  in  the  water  and  then 
go  out ;  otherwise  he  carries  water  into  unclaimed  ground  for 
four  ells."  If  that  is  so,  what  about  the  man  going  into  the 
water  ?  By  entering  he  pushes  the  water  forward  four  ells  (into 
the  lake  or  river)  by  mere  motion  ?  Motion  has  not  been  pro- 
vided for  in  the  prohibitions  of  unclaimed  ground. 

Said  Abayi,  according  to  another  version  R.  Jehudah:  "  If 
a  man  stepped  into  loam,  he  should  wipe  his  feet  on  the  ground 
and  not  on  a  wall."  But  Rabha  said:  "  Why  should  he  not  do 
that,  because  it  might  be  presumed  that  he  plasters  the  wall  and 
is  engaged  in  building  ?  Nay;  this  is  not  ordinary  building  (but 
more  like  field-work).  On  the  contrary:  If  he  wipe  his  feet  on 
the  ground  he  may  perchance  smoothen  out  an  incavation, 
hence  he  should  rather  wipe  his  feet  on  the  wall.  For  the 
same  reason,  he  should  not  wipe  his  feet  on  the  side  of  an  inca- 
vation, lest  he  smoothen  it  out." 

Rabha  said  again:  "  One  should  not  cork  a  bottle  with  a 
piece  of  cotton  or  cloth,  lest  he  wring  it."  R.  Kahana  said: 
"  The  dirt  on  a  garment  should  be  removed  by  rubbing  the  cloth 
on  the  inside  and  not  on  the  outside,  lest  it  seem  like  washing." 
R.  Abuha  in  the  name  of  R.  Elazar,  quoting  R.  Yanai,  said : 
"  One  may  scrape  off  dirt  on  an  old  shoe,  but  not  a  new  one. 
With  what  should  it  be  scraped  off  ?  With  the  back  of  a  knife," 
said  R.  Abuha.  Said  a  certain  old  man  to  him:  "  Withdraw 
thy  teaching  before  that  of  R.  Hyya:  One  must  not  scrape  ofl 
dirt  on  an  old  nor  on  a  new  shoe.  One  must  also  not  rub  his 
foot  with  oil,  while  it  is  still  in  the  shoe.  He  may,  however, 
rub  his  foot  with  oil  and  then  put  on  his  shoe  or  his  sandal. 
He  may  also  anoint  his  whole  body  with  oil  and  lie  down  on  a 
skin,  although  the  skin  is  benefited  by  the  oil."     Said  R.  Hisda: 


TRACT   SABBATH.  321 

"  Providing  the  oil  dripping  from  the  body  on  to  the  skin  is  only 
sufficient  to  polish  the  skin,  but  if  there  is  enough  to  soften  the 
skin  one  must  not  lie  down  on  it." 

The  rabbis  taught:  A  small  man  should  not  wear  a  large 
shoe  (lest  it  fall  off  and  he  be  forced  to  carrj'  it  on  the  Sabbath). 
He  may,  however,  wear  a  large  shirt  (as  there  is  no  fear  of  his 
taking  that  off  and  carrying  it).  A  woman  should  not  go  out 
with  a  torn  shoe  on  the  Sabbath  (lest  she  be  laughed  at  and 
carrj'  the  shoe).  She  also  must  not  accept  Chalitza  in  such  a 
shoe;  but  if  she  did  so,  the  Chalitza  is  valid.  She  also  should 
not  wear  a  new  shoe,  that  she  had  not  tried  on  before  the  Sab- 
bath (lest  it  be  too  large  and  she  take  it  off  and  carry  it).  Such 
is  the  explanation  of  Bar  Qappara. 

In  one  Boraitha  we  have  learned,  that  one  may  remove  the 
shoe  of  a  statue,  while  in  another  we  were  taught  that  it  must 
not  be  removed.  This  presents  no  difficulty.  The  one  Borai- 
tha is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  the  rabbis,  who  differ 
with  R.  Eliezer,  while  the  other  is  in  accordance  with  the  opin- 
ion of  R.  Eliezer;  as  we  have  learned  in  another  Boraitha:  R. 
Jchudah  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Eliezer,  that  if  the  shoe  was 
loose  and  easily  removed  it  might  be  taken  off. 


CHAPTER   XXI. 

REGULATIONS  CONCERNING  THE  POURING  OUT  OF  WINE  FROM  VES- 
SELS COVERED  WITH  A  STONE  (wHICH  MUST  NOT  BE  LIFTED), 
AND    THE    CLEARING    OFF    OF    CRUMBS,   ETC.,    FROM    THE    TABLE. 

MISHNA:  One  may  lift  up  a  (petted)  child,  that  has  a  stone 
in  its  hand,  also  a  basket  in  which  there  is  a  stone ;  one  may 
also  handle  unclean  Therumah  (heave-offerings),  together  with 
clean  and  with  ordinary  grain.  R.  Jehudah  saith :  "  One  may 
also  take  out  Therumah  from  mixed  grain  in  proportion  of  one 
to  the  hundred." 

GEMARA:  Rabha  said:  "  If  a  man  carried  out  a  child  to 
whose  neck  a  purse  of  money-was  fastened,  he  is  culpable  of 
carrying  the  purse;  but  if  he  carried  out  the  corpse  of  a  child 
which  had  a  purse  of  money  fastened  to  it,  he  is  free."  Why  is 
the  man  culpable  in  the  first  instance,  for  the  carrying  of  the 
purse  and  not  for  carrying  the  child  ?  He  holds  with  R.  Nathan, 
who  said,  that  a  living  thing  carries  itself.  Why  not  say,  that 
the  purse  is  an  accessory  to  the  child  ?  Have  we  not  learned  in 
a  Mishna  (p.  182),  that  if  a  man  carried  out  a  person  on  a  litter 
he  is  not  culpable  of  carrying  even  the  litter,  because  it  is  of  no 
consequence  to  the  person  ?  A  litter  is  regarded  as  of  no  conse- 
quence to  the  person,  but  a  purse  is  not  held  to  be  part  of  a 
child.  Why,  in  the  second  instance,  is  the  man  not  culpable 
for  carrying  the  corpse  of  the  child  ?  Rabha  holds,  with  R. 
Simeon,  that  every  labor  which  is  not  performed  for  its  own 
sake  does  not  make  a  person  culpable  (and  he  is  not  culpable 
for  carrying  the  purse,  because  in  his  sorrow  he  does  not  think 
of  the  purse  that  the  child  was  wont  to  play  with). 

An  objection  was  made  (to  Rabha's  teaching  by  virtue  of  the 
above  Mishna) :  One  7nay  lift  up  a  child  with  a  stone  in  its  hand  ? 
The  disciples  of  R.  Yanai  explained  this  as  follows:  "  A  child 
is  referred  to  that  yearns  for  its  father,  and  if  it  were  not  carried 
it  would  become  sick."  The  stone  is  no  hindrance  to  its  being 
carried.  If  that  is  the  case,  why  is  a  stone  mentioned  ?  why  not 
money  ?     Did  not  Rabha  say,  that  the  child  may  be  carried  if  it 

322 


TRACT    SABBATH.  323 

have  a  stone  in  its  hand,  but  not  money  ?  That  is  simple.  If 
the  stone  fall  to  the  ground  the  father  will  not  pick  it  up,  but  if 
money  falls  he  will  pick  it  up.  We  have  been  taught  by  a  Borai- 
tha  in  support  of  Rabha:  If  one  carry  his  clothes,  folded,  on  his 
back,  or  his  sandals  or  his  rings  in  his  hand,  he  is  culpable;  if  he 
wear  them,  however,  he  is  free.  If  he  carry  out  a  man  dressed 
in  clothes,  sandals,  and  rings,  he  is  also  free;  but  if  he  carried 
the  clothes,  sandals,  or  rings  alone,  he  would  be  culpable. 

"A  basket  in  luhich  there  is  a  stone,"  etc.  Why  should  a 
man  not  be  culpable  for  carr}'ing  it  ?  Is  not  the  basket  a  basis 
for  a  prohibited  thing  ?  Said  R.  Ilyya  bar  Ashi  in  the  name  of 
Rabha:  "  Here  a  basket  is  spoken  of  which  is  broken,  and 
where  the  stone  fills  in  the  gap,  making  the  basket  whole." 

"  One  may  also  handle  unclean  heave-offerings."  Said  R. 
Hisda:  "When  may  unclean  heave-offerings  be  handled?  If 
the  clean  heave-offering  be  at  the  bottom  and  the  unclean  on 
top,  the  unclean  may  be  removed ;  but  if  the  clean  be  on  top,  it 
may  be  removed,  and  the  unclean  must  remain  untouched."  If 
the  unclean  be  on  top,  let  it  be  thrown  off  until  the  clean  is 
reached!  Answered  R.  Ilai,  Rabh  said:  "  Here  fruit  is  spoken 
of,  that  would  be  spoiled  by  being  thrown  off." 

An  objection  was  made :  We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha : 
"  Unclean  heave-offerings  may  be  handled  with  clean  and  with 
ordinary  grain ;  it  makes  no  difTerence  where  it  lies :  on  the  top 
or  at  the  bottom."  This  is  a  refutation  of  R.  Hisda?  R. 
Hisda  might  say,  that  our  Mishna  treats  of  a  heave-offering  that 
is  needed  for  food,  while  the  Boraitha  treats  of  a  heave-offering 
when  the  space  it  occupies  is  needed.  What  impels  R.  Hisda 
to  explain  the  Mishna  in  that  manner?  Said  Rabha:  "  From 
the  latter  part  of  the  Mishna  it  seems  to  be  in  the  sense  ex- 
])laincd  by  him,  for  that  part  of  the  Mishna  says,  that  if  money 
lie  on  a  bolster,  the  bolster  may  be  turned  so  that  the  money 
shall  fall  down ;  and  Rabba  bar  bar  Hana  in  the  name  of  R. 
Johanan  explained,  that  such  is  the  case  only  if  the  bolster 
itself  be  needed;  but  if  the  space  occupied  by  the  bolster  is 
required,  one  may  lift  the  bolster,  with  the  money,  and  deposit 
it  elsewhere.  Now,  if  this  part  of  the  Mishna  refers  to  the 
demand  for  the  object  itself,  the  first  part  does  likewise." 

"  R.Jehudah  saith  :  *  One  may  take  Therumah  from  mixed 
grain  in  proportion  of  one  to  the  hundred.*  "  How  can  this  be 
done  ?  In  doing  it,  one  would  make  a  useless  thing  useful,  and 
that  is  not  permitted  ?     R.   Jehudah  holds  with  R.  Simeon  ben 


324 


THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 


Elazar,  who  declares,  that  one  may  look  upon  one  side  of  a 
mixed-grain  pile  and  consider  it  Therumah,  and  eat  from  the 
other.  How  can  it  be  said,  however,  that  R.  Jehudah  holds 
with  R.  Simeon  ben  Elazar,  for  have  we  not  learned  in  a  Borai- 
tha,  that  they  differ  on  this  question,  the  former  holding  that  one 
may  take  a  measure  of  grain  from  the  pile,  of  one  to  the  hun- 
dred, set  it  aside  as  Therumah,  and  use  the  remainder,  while  the 
other  says,  that  one  should  look  upon  one  side  of  it  and  eat 
from  the  other  ?  R.  Jehudah  is  even  more  lenient  ;  for  he  per- 
mits all  of  it  to  be  used  after  a  measure  had  been  set  aside, 
while  R.  Simeon  permits  only  part  of  it  to  be  used. 

MISHNA:  If  a  stone  lie  at  the  opening  of  a  barrel,  the 
barrel  may  be  bent  over,  so  that  the  stone  fall  down.  If  the 
barrel  stand  amongst  other  barrels,  it  may  be  lifted  and  then 
bent  over,  in  order  that  the  stone  fall  down.  If  money  lie  on  a 
bolster,  the  bolster  may  be  turned,  so  that  the  money  fall  down. 
If  dirt  be  found  on  the  bolster,  it  maybe  cleaned  off  with  a  rag; 
and  if  the  bolster  be  of  leather,  water  may  be  poured  on  it 
until  the  dirt  is  removed. 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Huna  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  "The 
Mishna  refers  to  a  case  where  the  stone  lying  at  the  opening  of 
the  barrel  was  left  there  by  accident.  If  it  was  placed  there 
purposely,  the  barrel  becomes  a  basis  to  a  prohibited  thing  and 
must  not  be  handled." 

"  If  the  barrel  stand  amongst  other  baTvels,"  etc.  Who  is  the 
Tana  who  holds,  that  where  there  are  both  a  permissible  and  a 
prohibited  thing  we  must  engage  ourselves  only  with  the  per- 
missible thing  and  not  with  the  prohibited  ?  Said  Rabba  bar 
bar  Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan :  "  That  is  R.  Simeon  ben 
Gamaliel,  who  said  in  Tract  Betza,  that  if  the  waste  was  in  a 
larger  quantity  than  the  eatable  portion,  the  eatable  portion 
might  be  taken,  but  the  waste  must  not  be  touched.  In  the 
case  of  the  barrel,  the  useful  portion  is  certainly  in  a  larger 
quantity  than  the  useless  (why,  then,  should  he  not  remove  the 
stone  ?).  If  a  man  should  wish  to  remove  the  wine,  it  would 
necessitate  his  lifting  the  barrel  at  all  events;  with  the  barrel  the 
stone  would  also  be  lifted,  and  in  that  case  the  useless  would 
surpass  in  quantity  the  useful." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Jose  said:  "  If  a  barrel 
stood  in  a  cellar  amongst  other  barrels,  or  among  glassware  (and 
there  is  danger  that  if  the  barrel  is  lifted  and  bent  over  the 
stone  covering  it  will  fall  upon  another  barrel,  or  upon  some  of 


TRACT    SABBATH.  325 

the  glassware  and  break  it),  it  may  be  lifted,  carried  to  another 
place,  bent  over  so  that  the  stone  roll  off,  its  contents  removed 
to  the  quantity  required,  and  returned  to  its  former  place." 

"If  money  lie  on  a  bolster,"  etc.  Said  R.  Hyya  bar  Ashi  in 
the  name  of  Rabh :  "  The  Mishna  here  refers  to  a  case  where 
the  money  was  accidentally  left  on  the  bolster;  but  if  it  is  laid 
there  on  purpose,  the  bolster  becomes  a  basis  to  a  prohibited 
thing  and  must  not  be  handled." 

Hyya  the  son  of  Rabh  of  Diphti  taught  the  same  as  Rabba 
bar  bar  Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan,  viz.  (page  323),  that 
if  the  space  occupied  by  the  bolster  is  required,  the  bolster 
together  with  the  money  may  be  moved. 

R.  Oshea  said:  "  If  a  purse  of  money  was  accidentally  left 
in  private  ground,  one  may  put  a  loaf  of  bread  or  a  child  on  it 
and  take  it  back  to  the  house."  R.  Itz'hak  said:  "  This  rule 
applies  not  only  to  a  purse  of  money,  but  also  to  a  brick  that  is 
needed  for  any  purpose." 

Said  R.  Jehudah  bar  Shila  in  the  name  of  R.  Assi,  that  a 
box  of  money  was  once  forgotten  in  the  market  and  R.  Johanan 
was  asked  what  was  to  be  done.  He  ordered  them  to  place  a 
loaf  of  bread  or  a  child  on  it,  and  take  it  in.  Said  Mar  Zutra: 
"  All  these  rules  are  laid  down  in  the  case  of  where  the  things 
referred  to  were  left  by  accident."  But  R.  Ashi  said,  that  such 
is  not  the  case,  and  that  a  child  or  a  loaf  of  bread  can  be  used 
to  move  a  corpse  only. 

When  Abayi  had  to  bring  in  stalks  of  grain,  he  would  put  on 
them  some  article  of  food  (or  some  vessel)  and  bring  it  into  the 
house ;  and  when  Rabha  had  to  bring  in  (an  uncooked)  dove,  he 
would  put  a  knife  on  it  and  bring  it  into  the  house.  When  R. 
Joseph  heard  of  this,  he  said:  "  How  sagacious  are  the  minds 
of  these  young  scholars!  When  did  the  rabbis  permit  this  to 
be  done  ?  When  the  things  to  be  brought  were  forgotten  on  the 
outside;  but  they  did  not  permit  their  being  moved  to  com- 
mence with."  Abayi  answered:  "(I  have  done  right.)  For 
were  I  not  a  trustworthy  man,  I  would  not  have  used  those 
means  to  bring  in  the  grain  at  all.  Stalks  of  grain  are  a  useful 
thing  to  sit  on,  and  maybe  handled."  And  Rabha  said:  "(I 
have  also  done  right.)  For  were  I  not  a  trustworthy  man,  I 
would  not  have  placed  a  knife  on  the  dove  at  all,  as  there  are 
some  people  who  cat  it  raw  (hence  it  may  be  handled  on  the 
Sabbath)."  Shall  we  say,  that  Rabha  holds  that  the  raw  dove 
may  be  handled  only  because  it  is  eaten  (raw)  by  some  people. 


326  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

and  were  it  not  so  it  could  not  be  handled  (on  Sabbath),  hence 
he  holds  as  R.  Jehudah  in  Tract  Betza  ?  Did  not  Rabha  say  to 
his  servant  on  a  festival:  "  Fry  a  duck  for  me  and  throw  the 
entrails  to  the  cat";  and  we  see  thence  that  he  permitted  his 
servant  to  handle  the  entrails  because  they  were  food  for  a  cat  ? 
The  entrails  would  have  spoiled  if  left  over  for  the  next  day, 
and  we  must  assume  therefore  that  they  were  designed  as  food 
for  the  cat  from  the  day  preceding. 

MISHNA:  The  school  of  Shamai  teaches:  "Bones  and 
husks  may  be  removed  from  the  table."  The  school  of  Hillel, 
however,  teaches:  "  One  may  only  lift  the  whole  table  board  (or 
cloth),  and  shake  off  what  is  left  over."  All  crumbs  smaller 
than  an  olive  may  be  removed  from  the  table;  also  the  hulls  of 
beans  and  lentils,  because  they  may  serve  for  fodder.  It  is 
allowed  to  use  a  sponge  for  wiping,  providing  it  has  a  handle 
made  of  leather;  otherwise,  it  is  not  allowed.  At  all  events, 
one  may  handle  a  sponge  on  the  Sabbath,  and  it  is  not  subject 
to  defilement. 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Na'hman:  We  know  that  the  school  of 
Shamai  holds  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Jehudah  (who  accepts  the 
theory  of  Muktza),  and  that  the  school  of  Hillel  holds  to  the 
opinion  of  R.  Simeon  (who  disregards  the  law  of  Muktza). 
(Hence  the  order  of  the  Mishna  should  be  reversed.)  The  dic- 
tum of  the  school  of  Shamai  should  be  credited  to  the  school 
of  Hillel,  and  vice  versa. 

"  Hulls  of  beans,''  etc.  The  permission  to  remove  the  hulls 
of  beans,  etc.,  is  certainly  in  accordance  with  R.  Simeon,  who 
disregards  the  law  of  Muktza;  and  the  latter  clause  of  the 
Mishna  referring  to  a  sponge,  which  must  not  be  used  for  wiping 
off  the  table  unless  it  have  a  handle  (because  without  the  handle 
it  would  be  wrung  and  that  is  prohibited,  although  the  intention 
to  wring  it  did  not  exist),  is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  R. 
Jehudah,  who  holds,  that  one  must  not  perform  an  act  even 
unintentionally.  In  this  case  R.  Simeon  also  agrees  with  R. 
Jehudah,  because  it  again  presents  a  parallel  case  to  the  behead- 
ing of  a  creature  where  no  intention  to  kill  it  exists. 

The  pits  of  dates  (Armiassa)  to  which  some  of  the  meat  ad- 
heres may  be  handled,  and  those  of  Parsiassa  *  must  not  be  han- 
dled. Samuel  used  to  handle  the  latter  with  bread,  holding  to 
his  opinion  that  anything  at  all  may  be  done  with  bread  (while 

*  For  explanation  of  the  terms  Armiassa  and  Parsiassa,  see  Vol.  I.,  p.  45. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  317 

others  hold  that  bread  should  not  be  put  to  any  uses  except  for 
food).  Rabba  would  hold  them  with  a  pitcher  of  water.  R. 
Sheshcth  would  throw  them  out  by  means  of  his  tongue,  and 
R.  Papa  would  throw  them  underneath  the  bed.  It  was  told  of 
R.  Zacharias  ben  Abkulos,  that  he  would  turn  his  face  towards 
the  back  of  the  bed  and  throw  them  out  with  his  tongue. 


CHAPTER   XXII. 

REGULATIONS   CONCERNING    PREPARATION    OF    FOOD    AND    BEVERAGES. 

MISHNA:  Should  a  cask  break  open,  sufficient  may  be 
saved  for  three  meals.  The  owner  may  also  call  to  others: 
"  Come  and  save  for  yourselves  (whatever  you  can)."  No  por- 
tion of  the  leakage,  however,  may  be  sponged  up  (soaked  up 
with  a  sponge).  One  must  not  press  fruit  in  order  to  extract 
the  juice;  and  if  it  ooze  out  by  itself,  it  must  not  be  used.  R. 
Jehudah  said:  "  If  the  fruit  is  for  eating,  the  juice  which  oozes 
out  may  be  used;  but  if  it  is  for  beverage,  it  must  not  be  used. 
If  honeycombs  be  broken  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath  and  the  honey 
ooze  out,  the  honey  must  not  be  used."  R.  Eliezer,  however, 
permits  this. 

GEMARA:  We  have  learned,  that  wine  must  not  be  soaked 
up  with  a  sponge,  and  oil  must  not  be  dipped  with  a  spoon,  in 
the  same  manner  as  it  is  done  on  week-days  (there  must  be  a 
slight  change). 

The  rabbis  taught :  If  fruit  becomes  scattered  in  a  courtyard 
(private  ground)  it  may  be  gathered  up  and  eaten,  but  this  must 
not  be  done  as  on  a  week-day;  i.e.,  gathered  in  a  basket. 

"  One  must  not  press  fruit,''  etc.  Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the 
name  of  Samuel:  "  R.  Jehudah  (of  the  Mishna)  agrees  with  the 
sages  in  the  case  of  olives  and  grapes."  Why  so  ?  Because 
this  class  of  fruit  is  intended  only  for  pressing,  and  the  juice 
which  must  of  a  necessity  ooze  out  might  be  calculated  upon  by 
the  owner  for  a  beverage.  Ula  said,  that  R.  Jehudah  differed 
with  the  sages  even  in  the  case  of  olives  and  grapes.  R.  Johanan 
said,  that  the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Jehudah  as  far 
as  other  fruit  is  concerned,  but  not  as  regards  olives  and  grapes. 

Said  R.  Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Jehudah,  quoting  Samuel: 
"  R.  Jehudah  subsequently  agreed  with  the  sages  as  regards 
olives  and  grapes,  and  the  sages  also  agreed  with  him  later  con- 
cerning other  fruit."  Said  R.  Jeremiah  to  R.  Aba:  "  Wherein 
do  they  differ  ?  "  and  R.  Aba  answered  :  "  Go  and  seek,  and  thou 
wilt  find  it!  "     Said  R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak:  "  It  seems  to  me 

328 


TRACT    SABBATH.  329 

that  they  differ  concerning  berries  and  pomegranates,  for  we 
have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  The  juice  of  olives  or  grapes,  which 
after  having  been  pressed  and  brought  into  the  house  had  oozed 
out  by  itself,  must  not  be  used,  whether  the  fruit  had  been 
brought  in  for  eating  or  beverage.  If  a  man  squeezed  out  the 
juice  of  berries  and  pomegranates  and  brought  the  pressed  fruit 
into  the  house  to  eat,  if  any  more  juice  oozed  out,  he  might 
drink  it;  but  if  he  brought  the  fruit  expressly  for  eating  pur- 
poses or  for  beverage,  or  without  any  express  design,  he  must 
not  drink  the  juice  that  had  oozed  out,  so  said  R.  Jehudah.  The 
sages,  however,  prohibit  the  use  of  the  juice  under  any  circum- 
stances." 

Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  "A  man  may 
squeeze  out  a  bunch  of  grapes  directly  into  a  pot,  but  not  into  a 
bowl.  (Why  not  ?  Because  if  he  squeezed  it  into  the  pot  it  is 
proof  positive  that  it  will  be  used  for  food,  but  if  squeezed  into 
the  bowl  it  might  be  used  as  a  beverage.)  Said  R.  Hisda: 
"  From  the  decree  of  our  master  we  can  learn,  that  a  man  may 
milk  a  goat  right  into  the  pot,  but  not  into  a  bowl."  Thus  we 
see  that  Samuel  holds,  that  beverages  when  mixed  with  eat- 
ables are  also  regarded  as  eatables. 

Said  R.  Zera  in  the  name  of  R.  Hyya  bar  Ashi,  quoting 
Rabh :  "  A  bunch  of  grapes  must  be  squeezed  directly  into  the 
pot,  but  not  into  a  bowl,  but  the  oil  of  fish  may  be  pressed  out 
even  into  a  bowl."  R.  Dimi  repeated  this  decree.  Said  Abayi 
to  him :  "  Ye  teach  this  in  the  name  of  Rabh,  hence  ye  have  no 
objection;  but  we  learn  this  in  the  name  of  Samuel,  hence  we 
have  the  following  objection  :  '  Can  Samuel  say  that  the  oil  of 
a  fish  may  be  squeezed  out  even  in  a  bowl  ?  Were  we  not 
taught,  that  if  a  man  squeezed  out  herbs  which  were  soaked  in 
wine  and  vinegar,  it  is,  according  to  Rabh,  permitted  to  com- 
mence with,  if  the  herbs  were  to  be  eaten;  but  if  the  juice  only 
was  to  be  used,  the  man  would  not  be  liable  for  a  sin-offering, 
but  he  should  not  do  it  to  start  with  ?  If  the  herbs,  however, 
were  cooked,  whether  the  man  wished  to  eat  them  or  only  use 
the  juice,  he  might  squeeze  them  out  into  a  bowl.  Samuel, 
however,  decreed,  that  be  the  herbs  cooked  or  raw,  one  may  do 
this  only  if  he  intends  to  eat  the  herbs,  but  not  if  he  only  intends 
to  use  the  juice;  if  he  does,  however,  he  is  not  liable  for  a  sin- 
ofTering. '  " 

R.  Dimi  answered:  "  By  the  Lord  I  My  eyes  have  seen  it, 
and  not  as  a  stranger,  that  I  heard  this  decree  from  R.  Jeremiah, 


330  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

he  from  R.  Zera,  he  again  from  R.  Hyya  bar  Ashi,  and  the 
latter  from  Rabh's  mouth," 

In  regard  to  the  quoted  Boraitha  concerning  the  herbs  that 
one  had  squeezed  out  (we  have  heard  the  opinion  of  Rabh  and 
Samuel),  R.  Johanan  said:  "  Be  they  cooked  or  raw  herbs,  he 
may  do  so  to  commence  with,  if  he  intends  to  eat  the  herbs ;  but 
if  he  only  desires  the  juice  he  must  not  do  so,  and  if  he  does  he 
is  liable  for  a  sin-offering."  All  this,  however,  is  opposed  by 
the  following  Boraitha:  "One  may  squeeze  out  herbs  which 
were  soaked  in  wine  and  vinegar  on  the  Sabbath  for  use  on  the 
same  day,  but  not  for  later  use ;  but  one  must  not  press  olives 
or  grapes,  and  if  he  does,  he  is  liable  for  a  sin-offering."  Now, 
this  is  in  opposition  to  all  three:  Rabh,  Samuel,  and  R.  Jo- 
hanan. Rabh  could  explain  this  in  accordance  with  his  teach- 
ing; viz.:  The  herbs  maybe  pressed  on  the  Sabbath,  for  use 
on  that  day  and  not  later,  providing  he  uses  the  herbs  for  eat- 
ing; but  if  he  wishes  to  use  the  juice  he  must  not  do  so,  but 
if  he  does  he  is  not  liable  for  a  sin-offering;  and  cooked  herbs 
he  may  squeeze  out,  whether  he  requires  the  herbs  or  the  juice; 
olives  and  grapes  he  should  not  press:  if  he  does,  he  is  liable 
for  a  sin-offering.  Samuel  could  explain  it  according  to  his  own 
opinion  :  A  man  may  squeeze  out  herbs  on  Sabbath  for  that 
same  day,  but  not  for  later  use;  and  the  same  law  applies  to 
cooked  herbs,  provided  they  are  used  for  eating,  but  if  the  juice 
is  wanted  they  must  not  be  pressed,  etc.  R.  Johanan  could 
explain  the  Boraitha  in  accordance  with  his  teaching,  as  follows : 
Be  the  herbs  cooked  or  soaked,  they  may  be  squeezed  out  if 
intended  for  eating;  but  if  the  juice  is  required  he  must  not, 
and  if  he  did  so  it  is  equal  to  pressing  olives  or  grapes,  and  he  is 
liable  for  a  sin-offering. 

Said  R.  Hyya  bar  Ashi  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  "  According 
to  biblical  law  one  cannot  be  culpable  except  for  pressing  olives 
and  grapes.  So  have  taught  the  disciples  of  Menasseh.  Also 
according  to  biblical  law,  a  witness  that  testifies  from  hearsay 
must  not  be  accredited,  with  the  exception  of  a  case  where  he 
testifies  to  having  heard  that  a  woman's  husband  had  died." 

"  If  honeycombs  be  broken  on  the  eve  of  Sabbath.''  When  R. 
Hosea  came  from  Neherdai  he  brought  a  new  Boraitha;  viz.: 
"  If  olives  and  grapes  were  crushed  before  the  Sabbath,  and  the 
juice  oozed  out,  it  must  not  be  drunk;  but  R.  Eliezer  and  R. 
Simeon  both  permit  it."  .Said  R.  Joseph:  "  He  just  tells  us 
of  another  man  in  addition  to  R.  Eliezer!  "     Said  Abayi  to  him  : 


TRACT    SABBATH.  331 

"  He  taught  us  a  great  deal;  for  from  our  Mishna  I  would  say, 
that  honeycombs  were  eatables  before  being  crushed  and  also 
afterwards;  therefore  R.  Eliezer  permits  the  use  of  the  honey, 
but  in  the  case  of  olives  and  grapes  which  were  previously 
eatables  and  subsequently  became  beverages,  it  might  be  pre- 
sumed that  even  R.  Eliezer  would  not  permit  their  use.  Hence 
we  were  instructed  by  R.  Hosea  to  the  contrary." 

MISHNA:  Whatever  has  been  dressed  with  hot  water  on 
the  eve  of  Sabbath,  may  be  soaked  in  hot  water  on  the  Sab- 
bath ;  and  whatever  has  not  been  dressed  with  hot  water  on  the 
eve  of  Sabbath,  must  only  be  passed  through  hot  water  on  the 
Sabbath :  excepting  only  stale  salt  fish  and  Spanish  kolias  (a 
kind  of  fish  which  was  generally  cured  to  make  it  eatable),  for 
passing  these  through  hot  water  is  all  the  dressing  required  for 
them. 

GEMARA :  What  does  the  Mishna  refer  to  ?  For  instance, 
the  hen  of  R.  Aba!  He  would  cook  a  hen,  then  soak  it  in  water, 
and  when  it  would  fall  to  pieces  he  would  cat  it.  Said  R.  Safra : 
"  I  was  there  at  one  time  and  R.  Aba  served  me  with  some  of 
that  dish,  and  had  he  not  given  three-year-old  wine  immediately 
after  it,  I  would  have  been  forced  to  vomit." 

R.  Johanan  would  spit  ever>'  time  he  was  reminded  of  Baby- 
lonian Kutach  (a  dish  made  of  small  salt  fish  boiled  in  milk). 
Said  R.  Joseph:  "  Yea,  and  let  us  spit  when  we  think  of  R. 
Aba's  hen."  And  R.  Gaza  said :  "  I  was  in  Palestine  at  one 
time,  and  made  that  same  dish  (kutach);  so  they  begged  me  to 
give  them  some  for  all  the  sick  in  Palestine." 

"  Atid  whatever  has  not  been  dressed  with  hot  water,"  etc. 
What  is  the  law  concerning  one  who  ha'd  passed  kolias  or  stale 
salt  fish  through  hot  water  ?  Said  R.  Joseph  :  "  He  is  liable  for 
a  sin-offering."  Said  Mar  the  son  of  Rabhina :  "  We  have  un- 
derstood it  so  from  the  Mishna,  because  the  last  clause  is  '  for 
passing  these  through  hot  water  is  all  the  dressing  required  for 
them,'  and  the  finishing  of  a  certain  kind  of  labor  is  equivalent 
to  hammering." 

R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  and  R.  Assi  once  sat  in  the  presence  of  R. 
Johanan,  and  R.  Johanan  dozed  off.  So  R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  asked 
R.  Assi  why  the  fowls  of  Babylon  were  so  fat.  R.  Assi  an- 
swered: "  Go  to  the  desert  of  Aza  in  Palestine,  and  I  will  show 
thee  fatter  ones."  "  Why  are  the  Babylonians  so  merry  during 
the  festivals  ?"  asked  R.  Hyya  again.  "  Because  they  are  poor 
(and  during  the  entire  year  they  have  no  pleasures,  so  they  take 


332  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

advantage  of  the  festivals),"  was  the  answer.  "  Why  are  the 
scholars  of  Babylon  so  well  dressed?"  queried  R.  Hyya. 
"Because  they  are  ignorami  "  (and  must  wear  good  clothes  in 
order  to  command  respect),  answered  R.  Assi.  At  that  moment 
R.  Johanan  awoke,  and  said  to  them:  "  Youngsters!  Did  I  not 
tell  you,  that  it  is  written  [Proverbs  vii.  4]:  '  Say  unto  wisdom, 
Thou  art  my  sister, '  which  means:  If  a  thing  is  as  certain  to 
thee  as  the  fact  that  thou  canst  not  marry  thy  own  sister,  then 
say  it  ?  Otherwise,  thou  shalt  not  say  it.  (Then  why  speak 
such  foolishness?)"  Then  said  they:  "  Let  Master  tell  some 
things  (which  would  benefit  us)!"  Said  R.  Johanan:  "The 
fowls  of  Babylon  are  fat  because  they  were  never  driven  away 
from  home,  as  it  is  written  [Jeremiah  xlviii.  11]:  '  Moab  was 
ever  at  ease  from  his  youth,  and  he  was  resting  on  his  lees, 
and  was  not  emptied  from  vessel  to  vessel,  and  had  not  gone 
into  exile:  therefore  had  his  taste  remained  in  him  and  his  scent 
was  not  changed. '  Whence  do  we  know  that  the  fowls  of  Pal- 
estine were  driven  from  home  ?  It  is  written  [ibid.  ix.  9] : 
'  Both  the  fowls  of  the  heavens  and  the  beasts  are  fled ;  they  are 
gone  away.* — [R.  Jacob  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan,  that 
the  fowls  and  the  beasts  and  all  else  came  back  to  Palestine  with 
the  exception  of  the  Spanish  kolias  (the  reason  will  be  ex- 
plained in  Tract  Bechorath.] — '  Why  are  the  Babylonians  merry 
during  the  festivals  ? '  Because  they  were  not  included  in  the 
curse  of  [Hosea  ii.  13]:  *  And  I  will  cause  to  cease  all  her  mirth, 
her  festival,  her  new  moon,  and  her  Sabbath,  and  all  her  ap- 
pointed feasts.'  " 

Said  R.  Itz'hak:  "(Indeed  it  was  so.)  There  was  not  a 
single  feast  in  Palestine,  that  the  military  did  not  come  to  Seph- 
oris  "  ;  and  R.  Hanina  said:  "There  was  not  a  single  feast  in 
Palestine,  that  captains,  guards,  and  supervisors  did  not  come  to 
Tiberias. " — "  Why  are  the  scholars  of  Babylon  so  well  dressed  ?  " 
"  Because  they  are  all  strangers.  As  the  saying  goes:  In  a  city 
where  a  man  is  known,  he  may  wear  whatever  he  chooses;  but 
where  he  is  not  sufficiently  known  he  should  dress  well." 

R.  Joseph  taught:  It  is  written  [Isaiah  xxvii.  6]:  "In  the 
future  shall  Jacob  yet  take  root:  Israel  shall  bud  and  blossom; 
and  shall  fill  the  face  of  the  world  with  fruit."  What  is  meant 
by  "  bud  and  blossom  "  ?  The  scholars  of  Babylon,  who  wind 
blossoms  and  wreaths  around  the  Thorah. 

MISHNA:  A  man  may  break  open  a  cask,  to  eat  dry  figs 
therefrom  ;  provided,  he  does  not  intend  using  the  cask  afterwards 


TRACT   SABBATH.  333 

as  a  vessel.  He  must  not  pierce  the  bunghole  of  a  cask,  such  is 
the  decree  of  R.  Jehudah  (or  R.  Jose) ;  the  sages  permit  this  to 
be  done.  And  one  must  not  bore  a  hole  in  the  side  of  it ;  but 
if  it  was  already  perforated,  he  must  not  fill  it  up  with  wax, 
because  he  would  smoothen  the  wax  thereby.  Said  R.  Jehudah: 
"  Such  a  case  was  brought  before  R.  Johanan  ben  Sachai,  at 
Arab,  and  he  observed:  '  I  doubt  whether  that  act  does  not 
involve  liability  to  bring  a  sin-offering.'  " 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Oshea:  "  When  may  a  man  hold  a  dirk 
to  open  a  cask  of  figs  ?  If  the  figs  are  very  tightly  packed,  for 
then  he  would  have  to  use  a  knife  or  a  dirk  to  get  the  figs  out ; 
but  if  they  were  packed  loose  he  must  not  use  a  knife  to  open 
the  cask." 

An  objection  was  raised:  We  have  learned,  that  R.  Simeon 
ben  Gamaliel  said:  "  A  man  may  bring  in  a  cask  of  wine,  cut 
off  the  bung-head  with  a  knife,  and  serve  it  to  the  guests  with 
impunity."  This  Boraitha  is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of 
the  sages,  while  our  Mishna  is  in  accordance  with  the  decree  of 
R.  Nehemiah  (who  holds  that  no  vessel  may  be  used  for  any 
other  purpose  but  that  for  which  it  was  originally  intended). 
What  impelled  R.  Oshea  to  make  the  entire  Mishna  conform 
with  the  dictum  of  R.  Nehemiah  ?  Let  him  say,  that  the  cask 
may  be  opened  with  a  knife  even  if  the  figs  are  loose,  and  thus 
be  in  accord  with  the  sages  ?  Answered  Rabha:  "  The  reason 
is,  that  R.  Oshea  could  not  quite  comprehend  why  the  Mishna 
specified  figs:  it  could  have  said  fruit,  and  on  that  account  he 
reasoned  as  stated." 

In  one  Boraitha  we  have  learned:  Palm-leaf  baskets  contain- 
ing dried  figs  and  dates  may  be  untied,  taken  apart,  or  cut;  and 
in  another  Boraitha  we  were  taught,  that  they  may  be  untied, 
but  not  taken  apart  or  tied.  This  presents  no  difficulty;  for 
one  Boraitha  is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  the  sages,  and 
the  other  is  in  accord  with  R.  Nehemiah. 

A  question  was  asked  of  R.  Shesheth:  "Maya  cask  be 
bored  with  an  auger  on  the  Sabbath  ?  Shall  we  assume,  that 
one  intended  to  make  an  opening  in  the  cask  and  hence  it  is 
prohibited,  or  that  he  intended  merely  to  make  a  larger  space 
for  the  flow  of  the  wine  and  it  is  therefore  permitted  ?"  The 
answer  was:  "  The  intention  was  to  make  an  opening,  and  it  is 
prohibited."  An  objection  based  upon  the  teaching  of  R.  Sim- 
eon ben  Gamaliel  previousy  mentioned  was  raised,  and  the  an- 
swer was:  "  There  the  intention  certainly  was  to  make  the  space 
VOL.  n. — 10 


334  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

larger,  while  here  it  is  obvious  that  the  intention  was  to  make 
an  opening;  otherwise,  he  would  have  broken  open  the  cask 
with  a  knife." 

"  One  must  not  pierce  the  hunghole  of  a  cask.''  Said  R.  Huna: 
"  They  differ  only  in  reference  to  the  top  of  a  bunghole  of  a 
cask;  but  as  for  the  side,  all  agree  that  it  is  not  allowed,  and 
this  is  carried  out  by  the  later  clause  in  the  Mishna;  viz, :  '  And 
he  must  not  bore  a  hole  in  the  side  of  it.'  "  R.  Hisda,  however, 
said:  "  They  differ  only  as  far  as  boring  a  hole  in  the  side  of  the 
bunghole  is  concerned,  but  as  for  the  top,  all  agree  that  it  is  per- 
mitted ;  and  the  later  clause  of  the  Mishna  means  to  state  that 
one  must  not  bore  a  hole  in  the  side  of  the  cask  itself." 

The  rabbis  taught:  One  must  not  bore  a  new  hole  on  Sab- 
bath, but  if  it  was  already  made  he  may  enlarge  it ;  and  others 
say,  that  he  must  not  enlarge  it ;  but  all  agree,  that  if  the  hole 
was  merely  stopped  it  may  be  reopened.  The  first  Tana  pro- 
hibits the  boring  of  a  new  hole,  because  thereby  an  opening  is 
made.  Does  not  enlarging  a  hole  improve  the  opening  ?  Said 
Rabba:  According  to  biblical  law,  an  opening  through  which 
one  cannot  enter  or  go  out  is  not  considered  a  door,  but  the  rab- 
bis made  this  a  precaution  on  account  of  chicken-coops,  the 
holes  of  which  are  made  for  the  purpose  of  admitting  fresh  air 
and  emitting  the  foul.  (Therefore  making  a  hole  in  a  coop  is 
equivalent  to  making  a  whole  coop,  for  without  holes  it  is  of  no 
value.)  Enlarging  a  hole,  however,  is  permitted,  because  one 
would  enlarge  a  hole  in  a  chicken-coop,  lest  an  ichneumon  should 
enter  and  kill  a  chicken.  Why  do  some  say,  then,  that  holes 
should  not  even  be  enlarged  ?  Because  it  might  be  that  one 
did  not  make  the  hole  in  a  chicken-coop  large  enough,  and 
would  enlarge  it.  R.  Na'hman  taught  in  the  name  of  R.  Jo- 
hanan,  that  the  Halakha  remains  according  to  the  last  dictum. 

All  agree,  that  a  hole  which  had  been  stopped  up  may  be  re- 
opened. Said  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  This  was 
said  only  in  the  case  of  where  a  hole  had  been  stopped  to  pre- 
serve the  aroma  of  the  wine.  If,  however,  the  hole  was  stopped 
up  in  order  to  strengthen  the  cask,  it  must  not  be  reopened. 
What  is  meant  by  preserving  the  aroma  and  by  strengthening 
the  cask  ?  Said  R.  Hisda:  "  If  the  hole  was  on  top  of  the  cask 
and  was  stopped  up,  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the 
aroma;  but  if  at  the  bottom,  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  strength- 
ening the  cask."  Rabha  said:  "  If  it  was  at  the  bottom,  it  was 
also  only  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  aroma;  and  only  if 


TRACT    SABBATH. 


335 


the  hole  was  stopped  up  right  underneath  the  lees  of  the  wine, 
it  was  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  the  cask." 

Rabh  prohibits  the  inserting  of  a  faucet  into  a  cask,  and 
Samuel  permits  it.  All  agree,  that  cutting  a  hole  in  the  cask  for 
the  purpose  of  inserting  a  faucet  is  prohibited,  and  that  replac- 
ing the  faucet,  if  once  removed,  is  permitted.  They  differ, 
however,  only  when  a  hole  had  already  been  made  in  the  cask 
before  the  Sabbath,  but  it  was  not  quite  fit  for  the  faucet. 
Those  who  say,  that  it  is  prohibited,  do  so  as  a  precaution  lest 
one  cut  a  fresh  hole,  while  those  that  permit  this  to  be  done  say 
no  precautionary'  measure  is  necessary'. 

This  is  like  the  following  difference  between  Tanaim:  We 
have  learned  that  a  screw  must  not  be  fitted  on  a  festival,  much 
less  on  a  Sabbath ;  but  if  it  fall  out  it  may  be  replaced  on  Sab- 
bath, and  so  much  more  on  a  festival;  and  R.  Yashia  makes  the 
ordinance  more  lenient.  What  does  R.  Yashia  make  more  leni- 
ent ?  Shall  we  assume,  that  he  refers  to  the  first  part  and  per- 
mits a  screw  to  be  cut  ?  In  that  event,  he  would  be  improving 
a  vessel,  and  that  is  certainly  not  allowed !  Shall  we  assume,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  he  refers  to  the  second  part;  the  first  Tana 
alone  permits  this  ?  We  must  say,  therefore,  that  the  screw  was 
already  cut,  but  did  not  quite  fit,  and  he  permits  the  fitting  of 
it.  (Hence  the  same  difference  exists  here  as  between  the  pre- 
vious Tanaim.)  R.  Shcsheth  the  son  of  R.  Idi  in  the  name  of  R. 
Johanan  said:  "  The  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R,  Yashia." 

**  But  if  it  was  already  perforated,''  etc.  To  fill  it  up  with 
oil  is,  according  to  Rabh,  prohibited,  as  a  precaution  lest  he  fill 
it  with  wax;  and  according  to  Samuel  it  is  permitted,  as  the  lat- 
ter does  not  deem  a  precautionary  measure  necessary.  Said  R. 
Samuel  bar  bar  Hana  to  R.  Joseph:  "  Thou  hast  said  distinctly 
in  the  name  of  Rabh,  that  oil  is  permitted."  Answered  R, 
Joseph:  "  Thou  hast  caught  me  in  a  trap."  * 

Said  Samuel:  "  The  leaf  of  myrtle  must  not  be  put  in  the 
bunghole  of  a  cask,  so  that  the  wine  flow  over  it."  Why  so  ? 
R.  Yimar  of  Diphti  said:  "  As  a  precaution  lest  a  groove  (chan- 
nel) be  made."  R.  Ashi  said:  "  As  a  precaution  lest  the  leaf  be 
broken  off"  (from  its  stem)."  What  difference  is  there  ?  The 
difference  is  in  the  case  of  a  leaf  that  had  already  been  broken 
off  (from  its  stem).  (The  precautionary  measure  of  R.  Yimar 
remains,  while  that  of  R.  Ashi  falls  to  the  ground  of  itself.) 


*  Sec  note  to  page  1 14  of  this  tract. 

4 


ii6  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Is  it  permitted  to  wrap  one's  self  in  a  bolster  in  public 
ground  and  bring  it  into  private  ground  ?  Rabh  prohibits  this 
and  Samuel  permits  it.  If  the  bolster  were  soft  and  could  be 
folded,  they  do  not  differ,  all  agreeing  that  it  is  permitted.  If 
it  were  hard  and  could  not  be  folded,  all  agree  that  it  is  prohib- 
ited. They  differ  only  concerning  a  bolster  that  was  neither 
soft  nor  hard,  but  a  medium  between  the  two.  One  says,  that 
it  appears  like  a  burden  and  should  not  be  carried,  while  the 
other  holds  that  it  is  not  a  burden  and  may  be  carried;  and  the 
opinion  just  ascribed  to  Rabh  was  not  stated  by  him  expressly, 
but  was  merely  inferred  from  the  following  incident:  "  Rabh 
came  to  a  certain  place  and  found  that  he  lacked  room ;  so  he 
went  out  into  a  lane  (unclaimed  ground),  and  when  a  bolster  was 
brought  to  him  he  would  not  sit  down  on  it.  Those  who  saw 
this  inferred  therefore  that  he  did  not  hold  it  to  be  permissible." 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  was  not  so.  Rabh  had  it  proclaimed 
that  a  bolster  was  allowed  to  be  used,  but  in  honor  of  the  mas- 
ters who  were  with  him  he  would  not  sit  down  on  that  bolster. 
Who  were  those  masters  ?     R.  Kahana  and  R.  Assi. 

MISHNA:  One  may  put  cooked  victuals  into  a  cave  (or  cel- 
lar) for  the  purpose  of  preserving  them  ;  also  put  clean  water 
(contained  in  a  vessel)  into  water  that  is  not  drinkable,  in  order 
to  keep  it  (the  former)  cool ;  likewise  cold  water  (in  a  vessel) 
into  hot  water,  in  order  to  warm  the  former.  One  whose  clothes 
have  dropped  into  the  water  while  on  the  road,  may  unhesitat- 
ingly go  on  with  them.  As  soon  as  he  arrives  at  the  outmost 
court  (of  the  city  or  village),  he  may  spread  his  clothes  in  the 
sun  to  dry,  but  he  must  not  do  this  publicly. 

GEMARA:  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  One  might  say,  that 
there  should  be  a  precaution  against  grading  (smoothening)  any 
incavations  that  might  be  in  the  cave ;  hence  we  are  told  that  such 
is  not  the  case. 

C/ean  luater  into  water  that  is  not  drinkable,  *  *  etc.  Is  this 
not  self-evident?  Yea;  but  this  is  taught  on  account  of  the 
later  clause  in  the  Mishna,  i.e.,  putting  cold  water  into  hot.  Is 
this  also  not  self-evident  ?  One  might  say,  that  this  should  be 
prohibited,  as  a  precaution  lest  one  also  put  a  vessel  containing 
cold  water  into  glowing  cinders  to  warm ;  so  we  are  told,  that 
such  a  precaution  is  not  necessary. 

One  whose  clothes  have  dropped  into  the  water, ' '  etc.  Said 
R.  Jchudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  "  All  things  which  were  for- 
bidden on  account  of  causing  suspicion  among  the  people  (that 


TRACT   SARBATH.  337 

one  is  committing  a  wrongful  act)  should  not  be  done,  not  only 
publicly,  but  even  in  the  innermost  recesses  of  one's  rooms." 
Is  this  not  contradictory  to  our  Mishna,  which  says,  that  one 
may  spread  his  clothes  in  the  sun,  but  not  publicly?  This  is  a 
difference  between  Tanaim,  for  in  reference  to  this  Mishna  we 
have  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  that  both  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Simeon 
hold,  that  it  is  prohibited  even  when  not  done  publicly. 

Said  R.  Huna:  "  He  who  dusts  his  clothes  on  a  Sabbath  is 
liable  for  a  sin-offering.  This  refers  only,  however,  to  a  new 
garment,  but  not  to  an  old  one,  and  the  new  garment  only  when 
it  is  black;  but  garments  of  other  colors  may  be  dusted.  Refer- 
ring to  a  black  garment,  it  is  only  then  prohibited  to  be  dusted 
if  its  possessor  is  particular  about  it  (to  such  a  degree,  that  he 
never  puts  it  on  without  dusting  it)." 

Ula  once  came  to  Pumbaditha  and  he  saw  the  rabbis  dusting 
their  clothes  on  a  Sabbath,  so  he  said:  "  The  rabbis  are  violat- 
ing the  Sabbath !  "  So  R.  Jehudah  said  to  his  disciples:  "  Dust 
your  clothes  right  before  his  eyes:  we  are  not  particular." 

Abayi  stood  before  R.  Joseph.  R.  Joseph  said  to  him: 
"  Give  me  my  hat."  And  seeing  that  the  hat  was  very  dusty, 
Abayi  hesitated  to  give  it  to  him.  So  R.  Joseph  said:  "  Take 
hold  of  it  and  dust  it:  we  are  not  particular." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  Those  who  deal  in  clothes, 
and  carry  them  folded  on  their  shoulders  on  Sabbath,  are  liable 
for  a  sin-offering:  this  refers  not  only  to  clothes-dealers,  but 
also  to  others;  clothes-dealers,  however,  are  mentioned,  because 
that  is  their  usual  custom.  The  same  is  the  case  with  a  mer- 
chant who  carries  out  a  bag  of  money.  He  is  liable  for  a  sin- 
offering;  and  not  only  a  merchant,  but  also  others;  but  mer- 
chants are  mentioned  because  it  is  their  wont  to  carry  money  in 
that  manner. 

Said  R.  Jehudah:  "  It  once  happened  that  Hyrcanos  the  son 
of  R.  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanos  went  out  on  Sabbath  with  a  ker- 
chief folded  on  his  shoulder  and  tied  to  one  of  his  fingers  with 
a  piece  of  twine  (in  order  that  it  might  not  fall  down);  and  when 
the  sages  heard  this,  they  said  that  the  twine  was  unnecessary, 
for  he  could  have  carried  the  kerchief  without  it." 

It  happened  that  Ula  came  to  the  house  of  Assi  bar  Hini, 
and  he  was  asked  whether  it  was  allowed  to  make  a  groove  of 
the  clothes  on  Sabbath.  (The  Babylonians  wore  long  garments, 
and  by  turning  them  up  at  the  bottom  a  quasi-groove  was  made.) 
Ula  answered:    "  So  said   R.    Ilai:    It  is  prohibited  to  make  a 


338  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

groove  on  Sabbath."  What  is  a  groove  ?  Said  R.  Zera:  "  A 
groove  made  of  the  clothes  of  the  Babylonians."  Said  R.  Papa: 
"  Bear  this  rule  in  mind:  If  the  clothes  are  turned  up  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  their  becoming  soiled,  it  is  prohibited; 
but  if  they  are  turned  up  to  improve  their  appearance,  it  is 
allowed,  as  R.  Shesha  the  son  of  R.  Idi  would  always  arrange  his 
cloak  (toga)  tastefully  (on  a  week-day,  hence  it  is  customary  and 
may  also  be  done  on  Sabbath)." 

When  R.  Dimi  came  from  Palestine,  he  related:  It  once  hap- 
pened that  Rabbi  went  out  into  the  field,  and  both  ends  of  his 
toga  hung  on  his  shoulders.  Said  Jehoshua  the  son  of  Ziruz, 
the  son  of  R.  Meir's  father-in-law  before  Rabbi:  "  Did  not  R. 
Meir  say,  that  in  a  case  of  this  kind  one  is  liable  for  a  sin-offer- 
ing ?  "  Said  Rabbi:  "  Was  R.  Meir  so  particular,  that  he  deter- 
mined just  how  far  down  the  ends  of  one's  toga  should  reach  ? " 
Still  he  (Rabbi)  let  down  his  toga;  and  when  Rabhin  came  from 
Palestine  he  said,  that  it  was  not  Jehoshua  ben  Ziruz  who  made 
that  remark,  but  Jehoshua  ben  Bepusai  the  son-in-law  of  R. 
Aqiba;  and  not  that  R.  Meir  said  what  has  just  been  cited,  but 
that  R.  AqIba  had  said  that.  Also,  that  Rabbi  had  inquired 
whether  R.  Aqiba  was  so  particular;  and  lastly,  that  Rabbi  let 
down  his  toga.  When  R.  Samuel  ben  R.  Jehudah  came  from 
Palestine  he  said,  that  Rabbi  was  only  asked  concerning  such  a 
case  (but  not  that  he  himself  was  the  party  referred  to). 

MISHNA:  One  who  bathes  in  the  water  of  a  cavern  or  in 
the  hot  springs  of  Tiberias,  though  he  wipe  himself  with  ten 
towels,  must  not  carry  them  off  in  his  hand;  but  if  ten  persons 
wiped  themselves,  their  faces,  their  hands,  and  their  feet,  with 
one  towel,  they  might  carry  it  off  in  their  hands. 

One  may  anoint  and  rub  the  stomach  with  the  hands,  but 
not  so  as  to  cause  fatigue.  One  must  not  brush  the  body  with  a 
flesh-brush  or  descend  into  a  kurdima.*  One  must  not  take  an 
emetic,  or  stretch  the  limbs  of  an  infant,  or  put  back  a  rupture; 
one  who  has  strained  his  hand  or  foot  must  not  pour  cold  water 
on  it,  but  he  may  wash  it  in  the  usual  way:  if  he  thereby  be- 
comes cured,  it  is  well. 

GEMARA:  The  Mishna  teaches,  "  the  water  of  a  cavern," 
in  connection  with  the  hot  springs  of  Tiberias;  hence  it  must  be, 
that  the  water  of  a  cavern  is  also  hot.     And  again  it  says,  "  one 


*  A  bathing  place  with  a  loamy  bottom,  into  which  it  is  easy  to  descend,  but 
from  which  it  is  quite  an  exertion  to  ascend. 


TRACT    SABHATH.  339 

who  bathes,"  and  not  "  one  may  bathe,"  from  which  we  see, 
that  to  commence  with,  bathing  in  those  waters  is  not  allowed; 
but  merely  to  rinse  one's  self  is  permitted,  even  to  commence 
with.     Tliis  is  according  to  the  opinion  of  R.  Simeon. 

"  Though  he  wipe  himself  with  ten  towels,"  etc.  The  first 
part  of  this  clause  in  the  Mishna  imparts  something  new  and 
unexpected  in  that  it  teaches,  that,  although  if  one  man  wipe 
himself  with  ten  towels,  there  will  be  ver>'  little  water  contained 
in  the  towels,  still  he  might  through  thoughtlessness  wring 
them;  and  the  latter  part  of  the  clause  also  imparts  something 
new  and  unexpected,  stating,  as  it  does,  that  if  ten  men  wipe 
themselves  with  one  towel,  although  the  towel  will  contain  a 
great  deal  of  water,  they  will  mutually  remind  each  other  that  it 
must  not  be  wrung. 

The  rabbis  taught:  "  A  man  may  wipe  himself  with  a  towel 
and  leave  it  at  the  window  of  a  house  that  is  nearest  to  the  wall 
of  the  bathhouse;  but  he  must  not  give  it  to  the  bathhouse 
employees,  because  they  are  suspected  of  wringing  it  on  the 
Sabbath."  R.  Simeon,  however,  says:  "  A  man  may  wipe  him- 
self with  one  towel  and  carr}'  it  in  his  hand  to  his  house."  Said 
Abayi  to  R.  Joseph:  "  How  is  the  law?"  and  he  answered: 
"  Did  not  R.  Hy>'a  bar  Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  say, 
that  the  law  prevails  according  to  R.  Simeon?"  Did  R.  Jo- 
lianan  say  this  indeed  ?  Did  he  not  say  elsewhere,  that  the 
Halakha  prevails  according  to  the  anonymous  teachers  in  the 
Mishna,  and  the  Mishna  teaches,  that  even  if  one  man  wiped 
himself  with  ten  towels  he  must  not  carry  them  ofT  in  his  hand  ? 
R.  Johanan  teaches,  that  the  Mishna  concludes  with,  "  So  said 
the  son  of  Hakhinai  "  (hence  it  is  the  teaching  of  one  individual). 

R,  Hyya  bar  Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  said:  "  The 
bathhouse  employees  may  carry  the  sheets  with  which  the 
women  wipe  themselves  in  the  bathhouse  on  the  street  by  wrap- 
ping them  around  their  bodies;  provided  they  wrap  them  over 
their  heads  and  the  greater  part  of  their  body." 

R.  Hyya  bar  Aba  said  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan:  "A 
large  veil  which  is  worn  by  women  should  have  the  two  ends 
that  hang  down  in  the  back  tied."  And  he  said  again,  that 
they  should  be  tied  underneath  the  shoulders. 

Rabha  said  to  the  inhabitants  of  Mehuzza:  "If  ye  must 
carr>'  clothes  for  the  military  on  Sabbath,  wrap  them  around  you 
underneath  the  shoulders." 

"  One  may  anoint  and  rub  his  stomach ^     The  rabbis  taught: 


340  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

"  The  stomach  may  be  rubbed  and  anointed  on  the  Sabbath, 
provided  it  is  not  done  the  same  as  on  week-days."  How 
should  it  be  done  ?  R.  Hama  bar  Hanina  said:  "  He  should 
first  anoint  it  and  then  rub  it";  but  R.  Johanan  said,  that  he 
might  do  both  at  the  same  time. 

"  But  so  as  not  to  cause  fatigue,"  etc.  Said  R.  Hyya  bar 
Aba  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan:  "  It  is  not  allowed  to  stand  on 
the  bed  of  Lake  Deumseth,  because  the  loam  at  the  bottom  is 
saline  and  immersion  in  the  lake  causes  fatigue."  Said  R. 
Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  "  The  days  on  which  a  cure  in 
that  lake  (for  bodily  ills)  may  be  effected  are  only  twenty-one, 
and  Pentecost  occurs  during  those  twenty-one  days."  The 
school-men  asked:  "  Does  Pentecost  fall  at  the  beginning  of  the 
twenty-one  days  or  at  the  end  ? "  Come  and  hear:  Samuel 
said,  that  all  waters  taken  for  a  cure  are  effective  only  from 
Passover  to  Pentecost.  As  for  waters  taken  internally,  Samuel 
may  be  right  (because  during  cool  weather  one  takes  more  exer- 
cise and  thus  the  waters  are  effective),  but  for  bathing  it  would 
seem  that  Pentecost  should  be  the  commencement. 

Said  R.  Helbo:  "  The  wine  of  the  land  of  Purgaitha  and 
the  waters  of  the  lake  Deumseth  robbed  Israel  of  ten  tribes  (be- 
cause indulgence  in  these  pleasures  are  detrimental  to  spiritual 
welfare)."  R.  Elazar  ben  Aroch  happened  to  be  there,  and  in- 
dulged in  those  luxuries  to  such  an  extent  that  he  forgot  his 
learning,  and  afterwards  the  sages  had  to  pray  for  his  return 
unto  the  Law.  This  is  as  we  have  learned  elsewhere  (Aboth):  R. 
Nehurai  said:  "  Go  into  exile  only  in  a  place  of  learning  and 
think  not  that  the  Law  will  follow  thee,  or  that  thy  comrades 
will  preserve  it  in  thy  hands,  and  do  not  depend  upon  thy  ac- 
quired knowledge."  This  R.  Nehurai  is,  according  to  some, 
the  same  Elazar  ben  Aroch,  and  he  was  called  Nehurai,  because 
this  signifies  (in  Hebrew)  "  light  of  the  eyes";  for  he  enlight- 
ened the  eyes  of  many  scholars  with  his  interpretations. 

"  One  must  not  brush  the  body,"  etc.  The  rabbis  taught: 
One  must  not  brush  the  body  with  a  flesh-brush  on  Sabbath. 
R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  said:  "  If  one's  feet  were  soiled,  he 
might  brush  them  the  same  as  on  week-days  unhesitatingly." 
The  mother  of  Samuel  the  son  of  Jehudah  made  her  son  a  silver 
brush. 

*'  Or  descend  into  a  kurdima."  Why  so  ?  Because  the  bot- 
tom of  a  kurdima  is  slippery  (and  one  might  fall  and  wet  his 
clothes,  and  thus  be  tempted  to  wring  them). 


TRACT    SABBATH.  341 

One  tmist  not  take  an  emetic."  Said  Rabba  bar  bar  Hana 
in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan:  "  One  must  not  take  a  medica- 
ment as  an  emetic,  but  may  thrust  his  finger  down  his  throat 
and  thus  cause  vomiting." 

Or  stretch  the  limbs  of  an  infant. ' '  Said  Rabba  bar  bar 
Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan:  "To  swathe  a  child  on 
Sabbath  is  allowed." 

"Or  put  back  a  rupture."  Said  R.  Hana  of  Bagdad  in  the 
name  of  Samuel:  "  The  Halakha  prevails,  that  it  may  be 
done."  (Samuel  learns  in  the  Mishna,  instead  of  "  it  is  not 
allowed,"  "  xX.  is  allowed.") 

Rabba  bar  bar  Hana  once  came  to  Pumbaditha,  but  did  not 
go  into  the  college  of  R.  Jehudah.  So  R.  Jehudah  sent  for 
Ada,  the  oflRcer  of  the  college,  and  said  to  him:  "  Go  and  take 
a  pledge  of  Rabba  bar  bar  Hana."  The  officer  went  and  did 
so.  Afterwards  Rabba  bar  bar  Hana  came  to  the  college.  When 
he  came  he  heard  R.  Jehudah  teach,  that  a  rupture  must  not  be 
put  back  on  the  Sabbath.  Said  he  to  him:  "  So  said  R.  Hana 
of  Bagdad  in  the  name  of  Samuel,  that  the  Halakha  prevails 
permitting  this  to  be  done."  Answered  R.  Jehudah:  "It  is 
our  Hana  and  our  Samuel.  Yet  we  never  heard  of  this  before. 
Now  thou  canst  see  that  I  was  right  in  demanding  a  pledge  for 
thy  appearance.  Hadst  thou  not  come,  we  would  never  have 
heard  this." 

One  who  has  strained  his  hand  or  foot  "  etc.  R.  I  via  sat 
in  the  presence  of  R.  Joseph,  and  he  dislocated  his  hand.  Said 
he  to  R.  Joseph,  making  a  motion  to  replace  it:  "  May  I  replace 
it  thus  ? "  "Nay,"  said  R.  Joseph.  "And  thus  may  I?" 
asked  R.  Ivia,  making  another  motion.  "  Nay,"  was  the  answer 
again.  Thus  questioning,  he  finally  succeeded  in  replacing  his 
hand.  Said  R.  Joseph  to  him:  "  What  didst  thou  ask  me  for  ? 
It  is  expressly  stated  in  our  Mishna,  that  if  one  strained  his  hand 
or  his  foot,  he  must  not  pour  cold  water  on  it,  but  he  may  bathe 
it  in  the  usual  way.     If  he  thereby  becomes  cured,  it  is  well." 

"  Did  we  not  learn  in  the  same  Mishna  that  a  rupture  must 
not  be  put  back,  and  still  Samuel  permitted  it  to  be  done?" 
asked  R.  Ivia.  Answered  R.  Joseph:  "  Canst  thou  weave  every- 
thing into  one  garment  ?  What  we  have  learned,  we  may  fol- 
low; but  what  we  have  not  learned,  we  cannot." 


CHAPTER    XXIII. 

REGULATIONS   CONCERNING  BORROWING,  CASTING    LOTS,    WAITING   FOR 
THE    CLOSE    OF    THE    SABBATH,    AND    ATTENDING    TO    A    CORPSE. 

MISHNA:  A  man  may  borrow  of  an  acquaintance  jugs  of 
wine  or  oil  (on  Sabbath),  provided  he  does  not  say  to  him: 
"  Lend  (them  to)  me."  A  woman  may  also  borrow  bread  from 
her  acquaintance.  If  the  man  is  refused  (by  his  acquaintance), 
he  may  leave  his  upper  garment  (as  a  pledge)  with  the  lender, 
and  settle  his  account  after  Sabbath.  Thus,  also,  in  Jerusalem, 
the  custom  was,  if  the  eve  of  Passover  fell  on  a  Sabbath,  a 
man  might  leave  his  upper  garment  with  the  vender,  take  his 
paschal  lamb,  and  settle  his  account  after  the  holiday. 

GEMARA:  Rabha  bar  R.  Hanan  said  to  Abayi:  "  What  is 
the  difference  between  saying:  '  I  want  to  borrow'  and  '  Lend 
me'  ?"  Answered  Abayi:  "  The  difference  is,  if  a  man  says, 
*  I  want  to  borrow,'  he  usually  returns  what  he  has  borrowed  and 
the  lender  will  not  be  compelled  to  write  it  down  ;  but  if  he  says, 
*  Lend  (trust)  me,*  the  lender  generally  writes  down  what  he 
has  lent."  Said  Rabha  again:  "  During  the  week  it  makes  no 
difference,  the  lender  is  not  particular  whether  one  says,  '  I  want 
to  borrow,'  or'  Lend  me.'  He  writes  it  down  just  the  same; 
then  why  should  a  distinction  be  made  on  Sabbath?"  And 
Abayi  answered:  "  The  saying  of  '  I  want  to  borrow,'  on  Sab- 
bath, is  a  reminder  to  the  lender  that  the  sages  said,  that  one 
must  not  say  *  lend  me,'  and  thus  prevents  him  from  writing  it 
down." 

The  same  said  again  to  Abayi :  "  Let  us  see  I  The  sages  said, 
that  everything  done  on  a  festival  which  can  be  done  in  a  differ- 
ent manner  from  that  on  a  week-day  should  so  be  done.  Now, 
why  do  we  not  see  women,  who  go  for  water  with  jugs,  perform 
that  work  differently  from  their  manner  on  a  week-day  ?"  He 
answered:  "Because  that  would  be  impossible!  For  how 
should  they  do  ?  Shall  we  sa}',  that  one  who  carries  a  large  jug 
should  carry  a  small  one  ?  That  would  necessitate  her  going 
twice.     Or  that  one  who  carries  a  small  jug  should  carry  a  larger 

342 


TRACT   SABBATH.  343 

one  ?  Then  she  would  have  a  heavier  burden  to  carr}'.  Should 
she  cover  it  with  a  cloth  ?  Then  she  might  wrin^^  it.  Should 
she  cover  it  with  a  lid  ?  Then  she  might  have  to  untie  it. 
Hence  it  is  impossible."  * 

"A  woman  may  also  borrow  bread  from  ati  acquaintance," 
etc.  From  the  Mishna  we  see,  that  only  on  Sabbath  a  woman 
must  not  say,  "  Lend  me,"  when  borrowing  bread,  and  on  week- 
days that  would  be  permitted.  Would  this  not  be  against  the 
decree  of  Hillel,  who  prohibits  this  on  account  of  possible  usury 
(as  explained  in  Tract  Baba  Metzia)  ?  Nay;  we  can  say  that 
the  Mishna  is  in  accordance  with  Hillel's  decree,  but  here  it 
refers  to  such  places  whore  bread  has  a  fixed  value,  while  Hillel 
refers  to  places  where  bread  has  not  a  fixed  value. 

"  If  the  vian  be  refused"  etc.  It  was  taught:  "  A  loan  on 
a  festival  is,  according  to  R.  Joseph,  uncollectable  by  law,  and 
Rabba  say  it  is  collectable."  R.  Joseph  says,  that  it  is  uncollect- 
able, because  otherwise  the  lender  will  write  it  down  ;  and  Rabba 
says,  if  we  say  that  it  is  uncollectable,  the  lender  will  not  trust 
the  borrower  and  the  latter  will  not  have  the  means  of  celebrat- 
ing the  festival.  Is  this  not  a  contradiction  to  our  Mishna, 
which  teaches,  that  if  the  man  be  refused  trust,  he  may  pledge 
his  garment,  etc.?  If  the  loan  be  uncollectable,  the  pledging  is 
quite  right;  but  if  it  be  collectable  by  law,  why  should  the  bor- 
rower pledge  his  garment  ?  The  lender  can  sue  him  by  law  ?  The 
lender  might  say,  that  he  does  not  care  to  be  troubled  by  law- 
suits and  judges.  R.  Ivia  would  take  pledges,  and  Rabba  bar 
Ula  would  trick  the  borrower  (by  in  turn  borrowing  something 
from  him  after  the  holiday  and  holding  that  for  a  pledge). 

MISHNA:  A  man  may  count  the  number  of  his  guests  and 
also  of  his  extra  dishes  verbally,  but  not  from  a  written  list.  He 
may  let  his  children  and  household  draw  lots  at  table  (as  to  who 
is  to  have  one  dish,  and  who  is  to  have  another),  provided  he 
does  not  intentionally  stake  a  larger  portion  against  a  smaller 
one.  They  may  also  draw  lots  for  the  holy  sacrifices  on  a  festi- 
val (as  to  which  priest  is  to  have  one  sacrifice  and  which  is  to 
have  another),  but  not  for  the  eatable  portions  of  the  sacrifices 
(to  whom  one  piece  belongs,  and  to  whom  another  piece  be- 
longs). 

GEMARA:  Why  should  a  man  not  read  from  a  written  list  ? 


*  The  additional  quotations  of   Rabha  bar  Ilanan  to  Abayi 
will  appear  in  Tract  "  Festivals,"  where  they  properly  belong. 


concerning  festivals 


344  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Said  R.  Bibhi:  "  Lest  he  might  strike  out  a  guest's  name  or  an 
extra  dish  from  the  list."  Abayi  said:  "  This  is  a  precautionary 
measure  against  reading  of  business  papers  on  Sabbath,"  What 
is  the  point  of  difference  between  them  ?  If  the  list  is  engraved 
on  the  wall !  In  that  case  there  is  no  fear  of  striking  out  a  name, 
but  the  precaution  against  reading  business  papers  still  remains, 
and  the  Amoraim  differ  in  this  case  with  the  Tanaim  in  the  fol- 
lowing Tosephta,  as  we  have  learned:  "  A  man  must  not  look 
into  a  mirror  on  Sabbath  (lest  he  trim  his  hair  with  scissors),  but 
R.  Meir  permits  looking  into  a  mirror  which  is  attached  to  a 
wall."  Now,  why  may  a  man  look  into  a  stationary  mirror;  be- 
cause by  the  time  he  goes  to  fetch  scissors,  he  will  be  reminded 
that  it  is  Sabbath  ?  Why  not  say,  that  the  same  is  the  case  with 
another  mirror,  which  he  holds  in  his  hand  ?  By  the  time  he 
lays  down  the  mirror  and  goes  for  scissors,  he  will  also  be  re- 
minded that  it  is  Sabbath  ?  The  mirror  prohibited  to  be  used 
by  the  first  Tana  of  the  Tosephta  is  one  that  is  attached  to  an 
instrument  which  can  be  used  to  trim  hair,  and  that  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  dictum  of  R.  Na'hman  as  stated  by  Rabba  bar 
Abuha  in  his  name:  "  Why  did  the  sages  prohibit  the  use  of  an 
iron  mirror  ?  Because  a  man  might  use  it  to  trim  his  superflu- 
ous hair." 

The  rabbis  taught:  An  inscription  at  the  foot  of  pictures  of 
beasts  or  men  must  not  be  read  on  the  Sabbath ;  and  gazing  on 
the  picture  of  a  man  is  prohibited  even  on  week-days,  because 
it  is  written  [Leviticus  xix.  4]:  "Ye  shall  not  turn  unto  the 
idols."  With  what  tradition  do  you  supplement  this  verse,  that 
you  may  infer  therefrom  the  prohibition  to  gaze  at  a  picture  ? 
Said  R.  Hanin:  "Ye  shall  not  turn  to  the  idols  which  your 
imagination  alone  hath  created." 

"  He  may  let  his  childre7i  and  household  draw  lots,"  etc.  It 
says,  "his  children  and  household":  we  must  assume,  that 
strangers  are  not  to  be  included;  if  not,  why  not  ?  As  R.  Jehu- 
dah  said  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  A  party  of  men  eating  on  a 
festival,  where  the  portions  distributed  to  each  are  exactly  alike 
in  size  and  quantity,  are  guilty  of  the  following  prohibited  acts; 
viz.  :  measuring,  weighing,  counting,  borrowing  and  lending*  (all 
of  which  acts  are  prohibited  on  a  festival).  According  to  Hil- 
lel's  opinion,  they  are  guilty  of  usury  also.      If  that  is  so,  why 

*  Guilty  of  borrowing  and  lending  can  only  be  explained  by  presuming  that,  if 
one  received  a  smaller  portion  than  another,  the  host  would  promise  to  make  up  for 
the  deficiency  on  another  day. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  345 

should  it  be  allowed  for  his  children  and  household  ?  Here  the 
reason  is  as  related  by  R.  Jchudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh,  who 
said:  "It  is  allowed  to  borrow  or  lend  from  and  to  one's  chil- 
dren and  household  and  charge  interest,  in  order  to  exemplify 
the  evils  of  usury."  If  that  is  so,  why  is  it  not  allowed,  accord- 
ing to  the  Mishna,  to  stake  a  larger  portion  against  a  smaller  ? 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  allowed  ;  but  the  Mishna  is  defective 
and  should  read:  "  He  may  let  his  children  and  household 
draw  lots  at  table,  and  et'en  stake  a  larger  portion  against  a 
smaller."  Why  so  ?  As  R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh 
above:  He  may  let  his  children  and  household  draw  lots,  but 
not  strangers.  Why  so  ?  As  R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of 
Samuel  above:  A  larger  portion  must  not  be  staked  against  a 
smaller  one  even  on  week-days  for  strangers.  Why  so  ?  On 
account  of  Kubeia.* 

"  T/te}f  may  also  draw  lots  for  the  holy  sacrifices,"  etc.  What 
is  meant  by  "but  not  for  the  eatable  portions  "  ?  (Why  should 
that  not  be  done  ?  The  eatable  portions  of  the  sacrifices  must 
be  eaten  on  a  festival.)  Said  R.  Jacob  the  son  of  the  daughter 
of  Jacob:  "  That  prohibition  is  only  applicable  to  the  eatable 
portions  of  the  sacrifices  left  over  from  the  preceding  day.  Is 
this  not  self-evident  ?  I  would  say,  that  because  it  is  written 
[Hosea  iv.  4]:  '  And  thy  people  are  contentious  equally  with  the 
priests,'  that  the  priests  are  contentious,  and  hence  they  should 
be  permitted  to  cast  lots  for  the  eatable  portions  of  the  sacrifices 
(for  the  sake  of  peace) ;  therefore  we  are  taught,  that  the  sacri- 
fices of  the  day  may  be  drawn  for,  but  not  those  of  the  preced- 
ing day." 

The  same  R.  Jacob  said:  "  A  man  on  whose  account  another 
man  has  been  punished,  either  through  divine  or  human  judg- 
ment, is  not  admitted  into  the  abode  of  the  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He."  Whence  is  this  adduced  ?  Shall  we  assume  that  it  is 
from  the  verses  [I  Kings  xxii.  20-22]:  "And  the  Lord  said, 
Who  will  persuade  Achab,  that  he  may  go  up  and  fall  at  Ram- 
oth-gil'ad  ?  And  one  said.  In  this  manner,  and  another  said,  In 
that  manner.  And  there  came  forth  a  spirit,  and  placed  him- 
self before  the  Lord  and  said,  I  will  persuade  him.  And  the 
Lord  said  unto  him.  Wherewith  ?  And  he  said,  I  will  go  forth, 
and  I  will  be  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.  And 
He  said,  Thou  wilt  persuade  him,  and  also  prevail:  go  forth  and 

♦  From  the  Greek  KvfJfia  =  dice.  The  above  prohibition  is  a  precautionary 
measure  against  the  possibility  of  casting  lots  degenerating  into  a  game  of  hazard. 


346  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

do  so."  And  it  was  asked  who  the  spirit  was,  and  R.  Johanan 
said,  it  was  the  spirit  of  Naboth ;  and  Rabh  said  that  by  saying, 
"  Go  forth,"  the  Lord  meant  to  expel  the  spirit  from  within  His 
abode.  Perhaps  the  reason  for  expeUing  the  spirit  was  because 
it  is  written  [Psalms  ci.  7]:  "  He  that  speaketh  falsehoods  shall 
not  succeed  before  my  eyes."  Therefore  we  must  say  that  the 
basis  for  R.  Jacob  is  the  following.  It  is  written  [Proverbs  xvii. 
26]:  "  To  punish  the  just  with  a  fine  even  is  not  good."  (This 
is  explained  to  signify,  that  even  punishment  through  a  just  man 
is  not  good.)  What  is  not  good  is  certainly  evil,  and  it  is  writ- 
ten [Psalms  V.  5]:  "  For  thou  art  not  a  God  that  hath  pleasure 
in  wickedness:  evil  cannot  abide  with  thee";  and  this  means, 
that  "  because  Thou,  God,  art  righteous,  evil  cannot  remain  in 
Thy  abode." 

"  They  may  draw  lots,"  etc.  How  do  we  know  that  the  word 
"  Choloshim  "  *  means  lots?  It  is  written  [Isaiah  xiv.  12]: 
"  How  art  thou  fallen  from  heaven,  O  morning-star,  son  of  the 
dawn !  how  art  thou  hewn  down  to  the  ground,  crusher  of  na- 
tions! "  ("  Crusher"  is  expressed  by  the  word  "  Cholesh"  and 
the  inference  is  made  from  the  supposition  that  lots  were  cast 
which  nation  was  to  be  crushed  first.) 

It  is  written  [Daniel  iv.  33]:  "  And  additional  greatness  was 
added  unto  me."  What  was  that  additional  greatness  ?  Said 
R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  R.  Jeremiah  bar  Aba:  "  From  this 
we  can  infer,  that  he  (Nebuchadnezzar)  rode  a  male  lion  and 
twisted  a  snake  round  the  lion's  head,  to  verify  what  is  written 
[Jeremiah  xxvii.  6]:  'And  also  the  beasts  of  the  field  have  I 
given  him  to  serve  him.'  " 

MISHNA:  One  must  not  hire  laborers  on  the  Sabbath,  nor 
may  he  commission  another  man  to  hire  them  for  him.  One 
must  not  stand  at  the  extreme  limit  of  the  "  techoom  "  f  and 
wait  for  dusk  (the  end  of  Sabbath),  in  order  to  hire  laborers 
(beyond  the  techoom),  or  gather  fruit  beyond  it;  but  if  watching 
fruit  beyond  the  techoom,  he  may  await  the  dusk  at  its  extreme 
limit,  and  in  that  case  bring  the  fruit  back  with  him.  Abba 
Saul  laid  down  the  rule:  "  Whatever  I  am  permitted  to  prepare 
for  the  day  following  the  Sabbath,  oti  the  Sabbath,  I  may  get 
ready  for  at  dusk." 

*  The  term  "  casting  lots"  is  expressed  in  the  Mishna  by  the  word  "  Choloshim" 
and  the  root  of  the  word  "  Choloshim  "  is  "  Cholosh,"  and  has  a  variety  of  meanings. 

f  By  "  techoom  "  is  meant  the  distance  of  2,000  ells  which  a  man  may  traverse 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  refers  to  the  limits  of  that  distance. 


TRACT    SARBATH. 


347 


GEMARA:  What  is  the  difference  between  a  man  and  his 
neighbor?  The  Mishna  teaches  he  should  not  hire  laborers  on 
Sabbath  nor  commission  another  man  to  hire  them  for  him?  Is 
this  not  self-evident?  His  neighbor  is  also  a  Jew.  Said  R. 
Papa:  "  That  refers  to  a  Gentile  neighbor."  R.  Ashi  opposed 
this,  and  said:  "  The  prohibition  to  commission  a  Gentile  to  do 
something  on  a  Sabbath  is  merely  rabbinical,  for  the  sake  of  the 
Sabbath  rest  (Shbhuth),*  and  to  hire  laborers  on  the  Sabbath  is 
also  prohibited  only  by  rabbinical  law.  How  then  can  one  rab- 
binical law  be  supplemented  by  another  of  the  same  character? 
Hence  I  may  say,  that  the  Mishna  refers  to  a  Jewish  neighbor 
and  should  be  explained  thus:  A  man  must  not  commission  him 
to  hire  laborers  on  Sabbath,  but  he  may  say  to  him,  '  Come  to 
me  after  dusk  and  wc  will  do  something  together.'  The  Mishna 
is  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  R.  Jehoshua  ben  Kar'ha,  as 
we  have  learned  elsewhere:  A  man  must  not  say  to  his  neighbor, 
'  I  would  like  to  see  thee  after  dusk  for  the  purpose  of  talking 
business,'  and  R.  Jehoshua  ben  Kar'ha  says  he  may  do  so,  and 
Rabba  bar  bar  Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  taught,  that 
the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Jeshoshua  ben  Kar'ha." 

Rabba  bar  bar  Hana  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan  said  again: 
"  What  reason  did  R.  Jehoshua  ben  Kar'ha  have  for  saying  so? 
Because  it  is  written  [Isaiah  Iviii.  13]:  '  By  not  following  thy 
own  business,  and  speaking  vain  words.'  It  is  not  allowed  to 
speak,  but  surely  thinking  is  permitted!  " 

R.  A'ha  bar  R.  Huna  asked  Rabha  concerning  the  following 
contradiction:  "  How  can  we  say,  R.  Johanan  states,  that  though 
it  is  not  allowed  to  speak  it  is  allowed  to  think;  did  not  Rabba 
bar  bar  Hana  say  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan,  that  everywhere 
it  is  allowed  to  think,  excepting  in  a  bathhouse  and  a  toilet- 
room,  for  where  it  is  not  allowed  to  speak  of  the  Law  it  is  also 
not  allowed  to  think  of  it  ?  "  "In  that  case  it  is  different,  for  it 
is  written  [Deuteronomy  xxiii.  15]:  'Therefore  shall  thy  camp 
be  holy,'  and  a  bathhouse  and  a  toilet-room  cannot  be  holy; 
hence  thinking  of  the  Law  in  those  places  is  not  allowed." 
Speaking  of  other  things  except  the  Law  is  not  permitted  (on 
Sabbath).  Did  not  R.  Hisda  and  R.  Hamnuna  both  say,  that  it 
is  allowed  to  count  up  charitable  disbursements  on  Sabbath ; 
and  R.  Elazar  say,  that  one  may  figure  out  amounts  to  be  dis- 
tributed among  the  poor  (on  Sabbath);  and  R.  Jacob  bar  Idi  say 

*  Sec  Introduction  to  Tract  Sabbath,  p.  xxii. 


348  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan,  that  all  things  pertaining  to  the  sav- 
ing of  human  beings  or  the  affairs  of  the  community  may  be 
discussed  on  Sabbath,  and  that  it  is  allowed  to  go  to  the  school- 
houses  and  call  meetings  for  deliberation  upon  the  community's 
business;  and  R.  Samuel  bar  Nahmeni  say  in  the  name  of  R. 
Johanan,  that  even  halls  may  be  visited  for  the  purpose  of  call- 
ing business  meetings  together;  and  the  disciples  of  Menasseh 
say,  that  betrothal  of  daughters  may  be  discussed  and  the  advis- 
ability of  choosing  a  profession  for  a  child  may  be  deliberated 
upon,  on  the  Sabbath  ?  The  passage  cited  in  the  Law  states, 
that  "  following  thy  business"  is  prohibited,  but  affairs  sanc- 
tioned by  Heaven  may  be  discussed  (and  all  the  above  affairs 
are  pleasing  to  the  Lord). 

R.  Jehudah  said  in  the  name  of  Samuel:  "Accounts  con- 
cerning which  advice  is  requested  by  others  and  which  have  no 
bearing  upon  one's  own  business  may  be  figured  on  the  Sab- 
bath." The  following  Boraitha  is  cited  in  support  of  this: 
"  Accounts  of  disbursements  in  the  past  and  of  future  expendi- 
tures must  not  be  calculated  on  the  Sabbath;  but  such  as  are  of 
no  importance,  and  concerning  which  advice  was  asked,  may  be 
calculated."  Is  the  following  Boraitha  not  contradictory  to  the 
one  cited  ?  "  Accounts  which  are  of  no  importance  at  all  may 
be  calculated  on  Sabbath,  but  not  such  as  are  of  importance." 
How  so  ?  A  man  may  say  to  his  neighbor,  "  I  have  hired  so 
much  labor  to  cultivate  a  certain  field,"  or  "  I  have  expended 
so  many  Dinars  on  such  a  dwelling,"  but  he  must  not  say,  "  I 
have  expended  so  much  and  must  expend  so  much  more." 
(The  contradiction  arises  from  the  fact  that  in  the  previous  Bo- 
raitha it  is  prohibited  to  calculate  disbursements  made  in  the 
past,  while  in  the  last  Boraitha  it  is  permitted.)  But  according 
to  your  opinion,  why  not  cite  the  contradiction  occurring  in  the 
previous  Boraitha  itself;  viz.:  Firstly,  it  is  said  that  disburse- 
ments of  the  past  must  not  be  calculated,  and  then,  that  ac- 
counts of  no  value  may  be  figured  ?  This  presents  no  contra- 
diction at  all  (neither  in  the  previous  Boraitha  itself,  nor  from 
one  to  the  other).  If  the  disbursements  of  the  past  have 
already  been  made  and  nothing  is  owing,  then  the  accounts  of 
same  are  of  no  value  and  may  be  spoken  of  on  the  Sabbath ;  but 
if  any  amount  of  such  expenditures  is  still  due,  then  it  becomes 
an  important  account  and  must  not  be  discussed. 

"  07ie  must  not  stand  at  the  extreme  limit  of  the  *  tcchoom,'  " 
etc.     The  rabbis  taught :  It  once  happened  that  the  fence  of  the 


TRACT    SABBATH.  349 

field  belonging  to  a  pious  man  was  broken,  and  noticing  it  on  a 
Sabbath,  he  was  about  to  mend  it,  when  he  recollected  that  it 
was  Sabbath;  so  he  left  it.  A  miracle  occurred,  and  kaffir-corii 
began  to  sprout  in  the  place  of  the  broken  fence  and  furnished 
him  and  his  family  with  their  sustenance.  R.  Jehudah  said  in 
the  name  of  Samuel:  "  A  man  may  say  to  his  neighbor,  '  To- 
morrow I  intend  to  go  to  a  certain  town.'  Why  may  he  say 
this  ?  Because,  if  there  are  huts  on  the  road  to  that  town  at 
distances  of  seventy  ells  apart,  he  may  even  go  on  Sabbath ; 
hence,  though  there  be  no  huts  on  the  road,  he  may  say  that  he 
intends  going  on  the  morrow." 

An  objection  was  made,  based  upon  our  Mishna;  viz. :  "  One 
must  not  stand  at  the  extreme  limit  of  the  techoom  and  wait 
for  dusk  in  order  to  hire  laborers  or  gather  fruit,"  It  would  be 
quite  right,  if  the  hiring  of  laborers  only  was  concerned ;  for  a 
thing  which  must  not  be  done  on  Sabbath  must  not  be  waited 
for  at  the  techoom ;  but  as  for  gathering  fruit,  if  there  were 
walls  around  the  town,  that  would  be  permitted  ?  Why,  then, 
should  it  be  prohibited  to  wait  at  the  techoom  until  dusk?  '  This 
may  refer  to  fruit  which  was  still  attached  to  the  ground  (and 
could  not  be  gathered  on  Sabbath  even  if  the  town  had  walls). 
How  can  this  be  said  ?  Have  we  not  learned  that  R.  Oshea 
taught:  "  One  must  not  wait  at  the  techoom  to  bring  straw  and 
chaff."  It  would  be  correct  concerning  straw  which  is  still 
attached  to  the  ground;  but  how  can  this  apply  to  chafT?  This 
may  refer  to  chaff  which  is  used  to  mix  with  loam,  and  hence 
was  designated  for  building  purposes. 

Another  objection  was  made!  Come  and  hear:  We  have 
learned  in  the  succeeding  Mishna,  that  nightfall  may  be  awaited 
at  the  techoom  in  the  case  of  a  bride  and  corpse;  hence  for  other 
purposes  one  must  not  await  nightfall  at  the  techoom.  It  would 
be  quite  right  if  it  said,  in  the  case  of  things  pertaining  to  a 
bride,  for  instance  to  cut  off  a  myrtle-branch ;  but  what  things 
can  be  done  pertaining  to  a  corpse?  Only  the  bringing  of  the 
coffin  and  the  shroud  ?  Why,  then,  should  a  man  not  be  al- 
lowed to  bring  things  which  are  the  equivalent  of  the  necessaries 
pertaining  to  a  corpse  ?  for  if  there  were  walls  surrounding  the 
town,  he  would  be  allowed  to  bring  them.  Why,  then,  should 
he  not  be  permitted  to  wait  at  the  techoom  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  them?  Because  the  case  may  be,  that  things  (as 
shrouds)  pertaining  to  the  corpse  were  not  already  prepared,  but 
must  be  cut. 

VDI..    II.  —  II 


350  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

"  But  if  watching  fruit  beyond  the  techoom,  he  may  await  the 
dusk,''  etc.  May  he  do  this  even  if  he  had  not  yet  recited  the 
Habhdalah  prayer  ?  Why!  R.  Elazar  ben  Antignous  said  in  the 
name  of  R.  Elazar  ben  Jacob,  that  a  man  must  not  transact  his 
business  at  the  close  of  Sabbath,  before  reciting  the  Habhdalah 
prayer.  And  if  it  be  that  he  said  the  Habhdalah  prayer  while 
reciting  the  evening  prayer,  did  not  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of 
Samuel  say,  that  even  if  a  man  included  the  Habhdalah  prayer  in 
the  evening  prayer,  he  must  say  it  again  over  the  goblet  of  wine  ? 
Should  it  then  be  said,  that  he  said  the  prayer  over  the  goblet 
also;  how  could  he  have  done  that  in  a  field?  This  case  refers 
to  the  time  of  wine-pressing  (when  it  is  possible  to  obtain  a 
goblet  of  wine  even  in  the  field) ;  such  is  the  explanation  of  R. 
Nathan  bar  Ami  to  Rabh.  Said  R.  Aba  to  R.  Ashi:  "  In  the 
West  (Palestine)  we  simply  say  the  benediction,  '  Blessed  be  he, 
etc.,  who  distinguishes  between  holy  and  ordinary  days,'  and  go 
right  to  work."  And  R.  Ashi  said:  "When  we  were  in  the 
house  of  R.  Kahana,  he  would  pronounce  the  same  benediction, 
and  we  would  go  and  chop  wood." 

''Abba  Saul  laid  down  the  rule,'"  etc.  Concerning  what 
clause  of  the  Mishna  does  Abba  Saul  lay  down  this  rule?  Shall 
we  assume  that  he  refers  to  the  first  clause  of  the  Mishna,  which 
decrees,  that  one  must  not  stand  at  the  extreme  limit  of  the 
techoom  and  wait  for  dusk,  and  thus  applies  his  rule?  Then, 
instead  of  saying,  "  Whatever  I  am  permitted  to  prepare,"  etc., 
he  should  have  said  in  the  negative,  "  Whatever  I  am  not  per- 
mitted to  say  to  another  man  he  should  do  for  me,  I  must  not 
wait  at  the  techoom  to  do  myself."  If  we  assume,  however, 
that  the  rule  refers  to  the  latter  clause  of  the  Mishna,  namely, 
"  but  if  watching  fruit,  he  may  await  the  dusk,"  etc.,  then 
Abba  should  have  applied  his  rule  to  the  contrary;  viz. :  "  What- 
ever I  am  permitted  to  wait  for  at  the  techoom,  I  may  tell 
another  man  to  do  for  me."  Abba  Saul  applies  his  rule  to  the 
latter  clause  of  the  Mishna,  and  he  refers  to  the  following  dic- 
tum of  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel,  viz.:  "  A  man  may 
say  to  his  neighbor:  '  Watch  my  fruit  which  is  in  your  vicinity, 
and  I  will  watch  such  of  yours  as  is  in  my  vicinity.'  "  This  is 
commented  upon  by  Abba  Saul,  addressing  the  first  Tana  as 
follows:  "  You  certainly  admit  that  a  man  may  say  to  his  neigh- 
bor, '  Watch  my  fruit  in  thy  vicinity  and  I  will  watch  thine  in 
my  vicinity.'  Now,  say,  '  Whatever  I  am  permitted  to  tell  my 
neighbor  to  do,  I  am  also  permitted  to  wait  for  at  the  techoom 


TRACT    SAIiBA'I'H.  351 

to  do  it  myself.'  "  What  docs  Abba  Saul  intend  to  supplement 
by  layinjT  down  a  rule?  He  means  to  add  what  was  taught  by 
the  rabbis,  as  follows: 

One  must  not  wait  at  the  techoom  to  bring  home  a  stray 
animal;  but  if  it  is  seen  from  the  limits  of  the  techoom,  it  may 
be  called,  so  that  it  will  come  to  within  the  techoom  by  itself. 
To  this  Abba  Saul  applied  the  rule,  that  if  one  may  call  to  the 
animal,  he  may  also  wait  at  the  techoom  limits  until  dusk  and 
bring  it  in  himself.  A  man  may  also  wait  at  the  techoom  limits 
to  forward  what  is  necessary  for  a  bride ;  and  also  what  is  neces- 
sary for  a  corpse,  to  bring  a  coflfin  and  shrouds  for  him ;  and  we 
may  say  to  him:  "  Go  to  a  certain  place  and  take  it;  and  if  thou 
dost  not  find  it  in  that  place,  go  to  another  place;  and  if  thou 
canst  not  buy  it  for  one  hundred  Zuz,  buy  it  for  two  hundred." 
R.  Jose  the  son  of  R.  Jehudah  said:  "  One  must  not  specify 
the  amount  the  necessaries  are  to  be  bought  for,  but  merely  say, 
'  If  thou  canst  not  get  it  for  little  money,  get  it  for  more.'  " 

MISHNA:  One  may  await  the  dusk  at  the  limits  of  the 
techoom,  to  furnish  what  is  necessary  for  a  bride  and  for  a 
corpse,  and  to  bring  a  coffin  and  shrouds  for  the  latter.  If  a 
Gentile  brought  mourning  fifes  on  the  Sabbath,  an  Israelite  must 
not  play  (mourn)  on  them,  unless  they  be  brought  from  the 
vicinity.  If  a  coffin  had  been  made  and  a  grave  dug  for  him  (on 
the  Sabbath),  an  Israelite  may  be  buried  therein ;  but  if  it  was 
done  on  purpose  for  an  Israelite,  he  must  not  at  any  time  be 
buried  therein. 

GEMARA:  What  does  the  Mishna  mean  by  saying,  "  unless 
they  be  brought  from  the  vicinity"?  Rabh  said:  "  By  that  is 
meant  a  place  within  sight,  where  one  is  positive  that  it  was 
•within  the  limits  of  the  techoom."  Samuel  said:  "  Even  if  it  is 
not  positively  known  that  they  came  from  within  the  limits  of 
the  techoom,  but  where  it  is  presumed  tliat  such  is  the  case,  the 
fifes  may  be  used."  Our  Mishna  seems  to  be  in  accord  with 
Samuel's  explanation,  because  it  says  in  the  next  clause,  "  If  a 
coffin  had  been  made  and  a  grave  dug  for  him,  an  Israelite  may 
be  buried  therein,"  and  it  does  not  say  positively  that  the  two 
things  were  done  for  a  Gentile ;  hence  we  see,  that  where  an 
object  is  doubtful,  we  may  presume  that  it  is  allowed.  Thus  in 
the  case  of  the  fifes,  if  there  is  a  doubt  as  to  whence  they  were 
brought,  they  may  nevertheless  be  used  by  an  Israelite.  We 
have  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  however,  a  support  to  Rabh's 
opinion ;  viz. : 


352  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

A  city  which  contains  both  Israelites  and  Gentiles,  and  there 
is  a  bathhouse  there  which  is  heated  on  the  Sabbath,  if  the  ma- 
jority of  the  inhabitants  are  Gentiles  an  Israelite  may  go  there 
immediately  after  sunset  on  the  Sabbath,  If  there  are  more 
Israelites  than  Gentiles  there,  the  Israelite  must  wait  the  length 
of  time  required  to  heat  water  afresh  before  going  to  the  bath- 
house; and  the  same  is  the  case  in  a  city  where  there  is  an  equal 
number  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  (This  is  a  support  to  Rabh,  be- 
cause, though  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  bath  was  heated  for  a 
Jew  or  a  Gentile,  still,  the  Israelite  must  wait.)  R.  Jehudah 
said:  "  If  the  capacity  of  the  bath  be  limited  (so  that  water  be 
heated  quickly)  and  a  notable  man  be  present,  the  Israelite  need 
not  wait."  What  is  meant  by  a  notable  man?  Said  R.  Jehu- 
dah in  the  name  of  R.  Itz'hak  the  son  of  R.  Jehudah:  "  If 
there  was  a  man  present  who  had  ten  servants,  who  could  heat 
ten  jars  of  water  at  the  same  time,  an  Israelite  might  go  and 
bathe  himself."  * 

"  If  a  coffin  had  been  made  and  a  grave  dug  for  him,''  etc. 
Why  should  we  not  wait  until  the  length  of  time  in  which  a 
new  grave  can  be  dug  elapses?  Said  Ula  :  "  This  refers  to  a 
paved  way,  where  a  grave  is  seldom  dug  for  an  Israelite  (hence 
it  must  have  been  dug  for  a  Gentile). "  What  can  be  said  in  ref- 
erence to  the  coffin  ?  Said  R.  Abuha:  "  If  the  coffin  lie  on  the 
same  grave." 

MISHNA:  One  may  do  all  that  is  necessary  for  a  corpse  (on 
Sabbath),  anoint  and  wash  it,  provided  he  does  not  dislocate  its 
limbs.  The  pillow  may  be  moved  from  under  its  head ;  the 
corpse  may  be  put  on  sand,  in  order  to  keep  it  (from  putrefying) 
the  longer;  its  jaws  maybe  tied,  not  for  the  sake  of  bringing 
them  together  more  closely,  but  to  prevent  them  from  dropping 
lower.  In  like  manner,  a  beam  that  had  been  broken  may  be 
upheld  by  a  stool  or  bedstead,  not  in  order  to  make  it  erect 
again,  but  to  keep  it  from  breaking  still  more. 

GEMARA:  Did  not  R.  Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Samuel 
say,  that  it  once  happened  that  a  disciple  of  R.  Meir,  while  en- 
tering behind  his  master  into  the  bathhouse,  wished  to  rinse  off 
a  place  for  his  master  to  sit  down,  and  his  master  would  not  per- 
mit it;  so  he  wanted  to  grease  the  steps  with  oil,  but  the  master 
said  that  the  floor  must  not  be  oiled?  Hence  we  see,  that  a 
thing   which    must    not  be  handled  must  not  be  anointed  or 

*  Others  say  that  this  above  Boraitha  really  supports  Samuel  on  account  of  R. 
Jehudah,  and  Rush!  remarks  that  he  finds  that  the  more  plausible  supposition. 


TRACT    SAliHATH.  353 

washed.  How  then  is  it  permitted  to  wash  and  anoint  a  corpse  ? 
If  the  floor  of  a  bathhouse  be  allowed  to  be  washed,  there  is  fear 
lest  another  floor  will  be  washed  also  (and  thus  smoothen  any 
holes  which  maybe  in  the  floor);  but  a  corpse  and  a  floor  cannot 
be  confounded,  and  it  is  allowed  to  wash  and  anoint  a  corpse  out 
of  respect  to  the  dead. 

What  is  meant  to  be  supplemented  by  "  all  that  is  necessary 
for  a  corpse"  ?  They  meant  to  add  what  was  taught  by  the 
rabbis;  viz. :  "  One  may  bring  vessels  for  cooling  the  corpse,  or 
iron  vessels  may  be  put  on  the  belly  of  the  corpse  to  keep  it 
from  swelling,  and  one  may  stop  up  any  holes  in  the  corpse  to 
keep  the  air  from  entering." 

MISHNA:  One  must  not  close  the  eyes  of  the  dead  on  the 
Sabbath,  nor  (even)  on  the  week-day,  while  he  is  expiring. 
Whoever  closes  the  eyes  of  a  dying  person  the  instant  he  expires, 
is  equal  to  the  man  who  sheds  blood  (like  a  murderer). 

GEMARA:  The  rabbis  taught:  Who  closes  the  eyes  of  a 
dying  man  is  like  a  murderer,  for  it  is  the  same  as  a  candle  which 
is  about  to  go  out.  If  a  man  lays  a  finger  on  the  flame,  it  im- 
mediately becomes  extinguished,  but  if  left  alone  would  still 
burn  for  a  little  time.  The  same  can  be  applied  to  the  case  of 
an  expiring  man ;  if  his  eyes  were  not  closed,  he  would  live  a 
little  longer,  and  hence  it  is  like  murder. 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel 
said:  "  One  who  wishes  that  the  eyes  of  a  corpse  should  close, 
should  inject  wine  into  the  nostrils  of  the  corpse  and  anoint  the 
eyelids  with  a  little  oil,  and  then  pull  the  big  toes  of  the  feet, 
when  the  eyelids  will  close  of  themselves." 

We  have  learned  in  another  Boraitha:  "  One  should  violate 
the  Sabbath  even  for  a  child  of  one  day,  if  it  still  have  life;  but 
for  a  corpse,  even  be  it  that  of  David,  King  of  Israel,  the  Sab- 
bath must  not  be  violated."  The  reason  for  this  is:  For  a  child 
of  even  one  day,  the  Sabbath  should  be  violated,  saith  the 
Thorah,  in  order  that  it  may  keep  many  Sabbaths  in  the  future; 
but  David,  King  of  Israel,  when  dead,  can  keep  no  more  com- 
mandments. This  is  in  accord  with  the  saying  of  R.  Johanan ; 
viz.  :  It  is  written  [Psalms  Ixxxviii.  6]  :  "  Free  among  the  dead," 
etc. ;  which  means,  that  when  a  man  is  dead,  he  is  free  from 
keeping  any  commandments. 

We  have  also  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Simeon  ben  Elazar 
said :  A  child  of  a  day  need  not  be  guarded  from  the  attacks  of 
cats  and  dogs,  but  even  when  Og  the  King  of  Bashan  is  dead  he 


354  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

must  be  guarded,  as  it  is  written  [Genesis  ix.  2] :  "  And  the  fear 
of  you  and  the  dread  of  you  shall  be  upon  every  beast  of  the 
earth,"  etc.  Hence,  as  long  as  a  man  lives,  the  beasts  are  in 
dread  of  him ;  but  as  soon  as  he  is  dead,  the  fear  is  destroyed. 

We  have  learned  in  another  Boraitha:  R.  Simeon  ben  Elazar 
said:  As  long  as  thou  canst,  practise  charity:  as  long  as  thou 
hast  the  opportunity  and  as  long  as  it  is  in  thy  hands.  For  Sol- 
omon said  in  his  wisdom  [Ecclesiastes  xii.  i]:  "  But  remember 
also  thy  Creator  in  the  days  of  thy  youthful  vigor,  while  the  evil 
days  (meaning  old  age)  are  not  yet  come,  nor  those  years  draw 
nigh  of  which  thou  wilt  say,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  them."  By 
that  is  meant,  the  days  of  the  Messiah,  because  at  that  time 
there  will  be  neither  rich  nor  poor:  all  will  be  rich  (and  no  op- 
portunity for  charity  will  present  itself).  This  differs  with  the 
teaching  of  Samuel,  who  says,  that  there  is  no  difference  between 
the  present  time  and  the  days  of  Messiah,  only  that  one  is  sub- 
ject to  the  government  at  the  present  time,  while  then  it  will  not 
be  so,  as  it  is  written  [Deut.  xv.  11] :  "  For  the  needy  will  not 
cease  out  of  the  land." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Elazar  Hakappar  said:  A 
man  should  always  pray  for  deliverance  from  poverty,  although 
if  he  himself  will  not  eventually  come  to  poverty,  his  children 
or  his  grandchildren  will,  as  it  is  written  [Deut.  xv.  11]  :  "  For 
the  needy  will  not  cease  out  of  the  land,  therefore  do  I  com- 
mand thee,"  etc.  (The  Hebrew  term  for  "therefore"  is 
"  Biglal,"  and  the  school  of  Ishmael  taught  that  Biglal  is  the 
equivalent  of  Galgal,  meaning  a  "  wheel,"  thus  inferring,  from 
that  word,  that  poverty  is  like  a  wheel,  always  turning  from  one 
to  the  other.) 

R.  Joseph  said:  "  There  is  a  tradition  extant,  that  a  diligent 
young  scholar  will  never  become  poor."  But  we  see  that  he 
sometimes  does  become  poor  ?  Still,  we  have  never  seen  one  sg 
poor  that  he  had  to  beg  his  bread  from  house  to  house. 

Said  R.  Hyya  to  his  wife:  "  If  thou  seest  a  man  about  to 
beg  bread  from  thee,  hasten  to  give  it  to  him,  that  he  might  at 
some  other  time  do  likewise  for  thy  children. "  Said  she  to 
him:  "  Art  thou  cursing  thy  children  ?"  "  Nay;  I  am  simply 
quoting  the  verse  above,  as  interpreted  by  the  school  of  Ishmael, 
that  poverty  is  a  wheel  continually  turning." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  Rabbon  Gamaliel  the  Great* 


*  This  means  Gamaliel  the  Second,  who  was  the  Nassi  in  Jamnia,  and  he  is 
entitled  "  the  Great "  in  many  places. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  355 

said  thus:  "  It  is  written  [Deut.  xvii.  18]:  "And  grant  thee 
mercy  and  have  mercy  upon  thee,  and  multiply  thee,"  etc.  This 
means  to  say,  that  one  who  hath  mercy  upon  creatures  will  be 
granted  mercy  from  above,  but  one  who  hath  not  mercy  upon 
other  creatures  will  not  be  granted  mercy  from  above. 

It  is  written  [Ecclesiastes  xii.  2]:  "  While  the  sun,  and  the 
light,  and  the  moon,  and  the  stars  arc  not  yet  darkened."  The 
sun  and  the  light  are  compared  to  the  brow  and  the  nose,  the 
moon  to  the  soul,  the  stars  to  the  cheeks;  and  further,  the  verse 
reads:  "  And  the  clouds  return  not  again  after  the  rain,"  which 
means,  that  after  weeping  the  eyes  become  dim.  (The  entire 
verse  is,  according  to  this  interpretation,  not  applicable  to  the 
end  of  the  world  but  to  a  human  life.) 

Samuel  said:  "  Up  to  forty  years  of  age,  the  eyes  of  a  man 
which  have  become  dim  through  tears  may  yet  be  restored  by 
different  remedies,  but  beyond  that  age  there  is  no  remedy  for 
them  ";  and  R.  Na'hman  said:  "The  dye  used  for  the  eyes 
makes  them  brighter  until  a  man  is  forty  years  of  age ;  after  that 
age,  however,  it  may  preserve  the  eyes,  but  does  not  help  them, 
even  if  the  eyes  are  filled  with  dye."  What  are  we  given  to 
understand  by  this  statement  ?  We  are  told  that,  the  larger  the 
brush  used  for  applying  the  dye  to  the  eye,  the  better  it  is  for 
the  eyes. 

One  of  R.  Hanina's  daughters  died,  and  he  did  not  weep 
over  her  death.  Said  his  wife  to  him :  "  Was  a  hen  carried  out 
of  thy  house?"  "Is  it  not  sufficient  that  our  child  died; 
wouldst  thou  have  me  lose  my  eyes  through  weeping  ? "  replied 
R.  Hanina;  and  he  is  of  the  opinion  of  R.  Johanan,  who  said 
in  the  name  of  R.  Jose  ben  Katzartha :  "  There  are  si.x  kinds  of 
tears  in  the  eyes,  three  of  which  are  good  for  the  eyes  and  three 
bad.  Tears  generated  by  smoke,  weeping,  or  disorder  of  the 
bowels  are  bad  for  the  eyes;  but  those  that  are  caused  through 
laughing,  acrid  fruits  (such  as  mustard),  and  medicaments  which 
are  applied  to  produce  tears,  are  good  for  the  eyes." 

It  is  written  [Ecclesiastes  xii.  3]:  "On  the  day  when  the 
watchmen  of  the  house  will  tremble  ":  this  refers  to  the  bowels 
and  the  sides  which  protect  the  bowels;  "  the  men  of  might  will 
bend  themselves,"  meaning  the  legs  of  the  man;  "  and  those  be 
darkened  that  look  through  the  windows,"  refers  to  the  eyes, 

Caesar  asked  of  R.  Jehoshua  ben  Hananiah  :  "Why  didst 
thou  not  come  to  the  debating  rooms?"  and  he  answered: 
"  The  mountain  is  covered  with  snow  "  (meaning  his  head  was 


356  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

gray),  "  the  surrounding  paths  are  icy  "  (meaning  his  beard  was 
gray),  "  the  dogs  do  not  bark  any  more  "  (meaning  his  voice  was 
inaudible),  "  and  the  millstones  grind  no  more"  (meaning  his 
teeth  were  decayed). 

The  school  of  Rabh  would  say  of  an  old  man:  "  He  hath 
lost  nothing  and  is  constantly  seeking  "  (meaning  that  he  was 
always  bowed  down). 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Jose  bar  Kisma  said: 
"  Two  are  better  than  three  "  (referring  to  two  legs,  instead  of 
two  legs  and  a  stick).  "  Woe  is  to  the  one  who  goeth  away  and 
doth  not  return,"  so  said  he.  What  does  he  mean  by  it  ?  Said 
R.  Hisda:  "Youth." 

When  R.  Dimi  came  from  Palestine,  he  said:  "  Youth  is  a 
crown  of  roses,  and  old  age  a  crown  of  thorns." 

We  have  learned  in  the  name  of  R.  Meir:  Be  heedful  of 
thy  teeth  and  thou  wilt  show  it  in  thy  step,  as  it  is  written  [Jer- 
emiah xliv.  17]:  "  When  we  had  plenty  of  food  and  fared  well 
and  saw  no  evil."  Said  Samuel  to  his  disciple  R.  Jehudah: 
"Thou  sagacious  man!  When  thou  goest  to  eat,  untie  thy 
stomacher  and  bring  in  thy  bread !  Before  the  age  of  forty,  eat- 
ing is  more  wholesome;  but  after  that,  drinking  is  better." 

A  eunuch  (who  was  a  Sadducee)  said  to  R.  Jehoshua,  who 
was  bald-headed,  with  the  intent  to  tease  him:  "  How  far  is  it 
from  here  to  Bald  city?"  and  he  answered:  "Just  as  far  as 
from  here  to  Castrate  city."  The  eunuch  said  again:  "  I  no- 
ticed that  a  bald  goat  only  cost  four  Zuz  " ;  and  R.  Jehoshua 
said:  "Yea!  and  I  noticed  that  the  privates  which  were  cut 
away  from  a  he-goat  cost  eight  Zuz."  The  eunuch  noticed  that 
R.  Jehoshua  did  not  wear  shoes,  and  said :  "  He  who  rides  a 
horse  is  a  king,  he  who  rides  an  ass  is  a  nobleman,  he  who 
wears  shoes  is  at  least  a  man,  but  he  who  does  not  even  wear 
shoes  is  worse  off  than  a  corpse  in  his  grave."  Said  R.  Je- 
hoshua: "  Thou  eunuch!  Thou  hast  told  me  three  things,  and 
three  things  thou  shalt  presently  hear  from  me :  The  beauty  of 
the  face  is  a  beard,  the  joy  of  the  heart  is  a  wife,  and  God's  in- 
heritance is  children.  Blessed  be  the  place  that  has  kept  thee 
from  all  these  joys."  The  eunuch  retorted:  "  Thou  bald-head! 
Wouldst  thou  quarrel  with  me!"  and  R.  Jehoshua  replied: 
"  Thou  eunuch!     Thou  earnest  to  tease  me.'' 

Rabbi  said  to  R.  Simeon  the  son  of  Halaphta:  "  Why  did 
we  not  have  the  pleasure  of  thy  company  on  the  festivals,  as 
our  parents  had  the  pleasure  of  thy  parents'  company  ?"  and  he 


TRACT    SABBATH.  357 

answered:  "  The  liills  have  become  mountains,  those  who  were 
near  have  become  distant,  two  have  become  three,  and  the 
peacemaker  of  the  house  is  gone"  (meaning,  "  I  have  become 
old,  can  make  but  short  steps,  must  have  a  cane  to  lean  on,  and 
my  teeth  are  gone  "). 

It  is  written  [Ecclesiastes  xii.  4] :  "  And  when  the  two  doors 
on  the  streets  will  be  locked,  while  the  sound  of  the  mill  bc- 
cometh  dull,  and  man  riseth  up  at  the  voice  of  the  bird  ";  and 
means,  that  in  old  age  a  man's  stomach  refuses  to  digest  and  he 
cannot  excremcntize,  and  he  becomes  so  weak  that  the  least 
sound,  such  as  piping  of  a  bird,  will  awaken  him  from  his  slum- 
bers. Even  so  said  Barzillai  the  Gileadite  to  King  David  [II 
Samuel  xix.  36]:  "  I  am  eighty  years  old  this  day;  can  I  dis- 
cern between  good  and  evil  ? "  which  proves  to  us  that  the  mind 
of  an  old  man  changes;  and  further,  it  says:  "  Or  can  thy  ser- 
vant taste  what  I  eat  or  what  I  drink?"  From  this  we  see 
that  an  old  man's  sense  of  taste  is  lost;  and  further,  again: 
"  Or  can  I  listen  yet  to  the  voice  of  singing  men  and  sing- 
ing women?"  which  proves  to  us  that  old  men  become  hard 
of  hearing.  Said  Rabh :  "Barzillai  the  Gileadite  was  a  liar; 
for  the  servant  who  was  in  the  house  of  Rabbi  was  ninety- 
two  years  old,  and  she  would  taste  all  the  dishes  that  were 
being  cooked."  Said  Rabha:  "  Barzillai  was  a  lascivious  man, 
and  a  man  of  that  kind  ages  very  rapidly  and  loses  all  his 
senses." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R,  Ishmael  bar  R.  Jose  said: 
"  The  older  scholars  become,  the  more  wisdom  comes  to  them, 
as  it  is  written  [Job  xii.  12]  :  '  So  is  with  the  ancients  wisdom, 
and  with  those  of  length  of  days  understanding.'  With  ignorant 
men,  however,  it  is  different.  The  older  they  become,  the  more 
ignorant  they  are,  as  it  is  written  [ibid.  20] :  '  He  removeth  the 
speech  from  trusty  speakers  and  taketh  away  the  intelligence  of 
the  aged.'  " 

It  is  written  [Ecclesiastes  xii.  5] :  "  Also  when  men  will  be 
afraid  of  every  elevation."  To  an  aged  man,  even  a  little  hil- 
lock appears  as  a  high  mountain;  "  and  are  terrified  on  ever)' 
way,"  and  they  are  afraid  of  everj'thing  on  their  way;  "  and 
the  almond-tree  will  refuse  (its  blossom),"  meaning  that  the 
joints  of  the  limbs  will  refuse  to  do  their  duty;  "  and  the  locust 
will  drag  itself  slowly  along,  and  the  desire  will  gainsay  compli- 
ance," means  that  the  desires  of  old  men  wane. 

Said  R.  Kahana :  "  What  is  written  [Psalms  xxxiii.  9]:  '  For 


358  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

he  spoke,  and  it  came  into  being,'  refers  to  a  woman;  and  '  he 
commanded,  and  it  stood  fast,'  refers  to  children." 

It  is  written  [Ecclesiastes  xii.  5] :  "  Because  man  goeth  to 
his  eternal  home."  Said  R.  Itz'hak:  "  This  proves  that  every 
righteous  man  is  given  a  dwelling  in  the  world  to  come  according 
to  his  merit,  and  this  is  like  a  king  with  his  slaves  entering  a 
city.  They  all  enter  through  one  gate,  but  when  night  comes 
every  man  is  given  a  berth  in  accordance  with  his  rank." 

R.  Itz'hak  said  again:  "  It  is  written  [Ecclesiastes  xi.  10]: 
'  For  childhood  and  the  time  when  the  head  is  black  *  are  van- 
ity,' and  means  to  say,  that  the  deeds  committed  in  youth 
blacken  the  reputation  in  old  age." 

R.  Itz'hak  said  again :  The  worms  are  as  disagreeable  to  a 
corpse  as  pricks  of  needles  are  to  a  man,  even  if  an  excrescence 
only  is  pricked,  as  it  is  written  [Job  xiv.  22] :  "  But  his  body  on 
him  feeleth  pain,  and  his  soul  will  mourn  for  him."  R.  Hisda 
said:  "  The  soul  of  a  man  mourns  for  him  the  first  seven  days 
after  his  death,  and  that  is  based  upon  an  analogy  of  expres- 
sion ;  viz.  :  It  is  written  [Genesis  1.  10]  :  *  And  he  made  for  his 
father  a  mourning  of  seven  days  ' ;  and  the  verse  in  Job  previ- 
ously quoted  also  contains  the  word  '  mourn,'  hence  the  anal- 
ogy-" 

R.  Jehudah  said:  "  If  a  corpse  has  left  none  to  mourn  him, 

ten  men  should  go  to  the  place  where  he  died  and  mourn  his 
death."  A  stranger,  who  had  none  to  mourn  him,  died  in  the 
neighborhood  of  R.  Jehudah ;  so  every  day  R.  Jehudah  took 
ten  men,  went  to  the  place  where  the  stranger  died,  and  mourned 
for  him.  After  seven  days,  the  spirit  of  the  stranger  appeared 
to  R.  Jehudah  in  a  dream,  and  said  to  him :  "  May  thy  heart  be 
as  light  as  thou  hast  made  mine." 

Said  R.  Abuha:  "  All  that  is  said  in  the  presence  of  a  corpse 
is  known  to  the  latter,  until  he  is  buried  and  the  earth  is  thrown 
on  top  of  him."  R.  Hyya  and  R.  Simeon  bar  Rabbi  differ  con- 
cerning this:  One  says,  until  the  corpse  is  buried,  and  the  other, 
until  the  flesh  is  decomposed.  He  who  says  until  the  flesh  is 
decomposed,  bases  his  assertion  on  the  previously  cited  verse: 
"  But  his  body  on  him  feeleth  pain,  and  his  soul  will  mourn 
him."  The  other,  who  says  "  only  until  he  is  buried,"  bases 
his  assertion  upon  the  verse  [Ecclesiastes  xii.  7] :  "  When  the 


*  The  Hebrew  expression  for  "  the  time  when  the  head  is  black  "  is  "  Shachrus,' 
meaning  blackness. 


TRACT    SAHRATH. 


359 


dust  will  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit  will  return 
unto  God  who  gave  it." 

The  rabbis  taught:  "  Return  the  soul  to  the  Lord  as  clean  as 
He  gave  it  to  thee."  This  is  illustrated  by  a  parable  of  a  king  who 
once  gave  to  his  attendants  suits  of  clothes.  The  wise  among 
them  took  care  of  them,  kept  them  clean  and  folded,  and  used 
them  on  special  occasions  only.  The  fools  put  them  on  and 
performed  their  work  in  them.  Naturally,  the  clothes  became 
dirty.  All  at  once,  the  king  demanded  the  clothes  back  again. 
The  wise  men  returned  them  clean  and  whole,  but  the  fools 
returned  them  in  a  dirty  and  dilapidated  condition.  The  king 
was  well  pleased  with  the  wise  men,  and  told  them  to  depart  in 
peace,  and  had  their  clothes  stored ;  but  the  clothes  of  the  fools 
he  ordered  to  be  sent  to  the  washers,  and  the  fools  were  sent  to 
prison.  So  does  also  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He.  Concerning 
the  bodies  of  the  righteous  men,  He  saith  [Isaiah  Ivii.  2]:  "  He 
shall  come  in  peace:  they  shall  repose  in  their  resting-place"; 
and  concerning  the  souls  he  saith  [I  Samuel  xxv.  29]:  "  Yet  will 
the  soul  of  my  lord  be  bound  in  the  bond  of  life  with  the  Lord 
thy  God."  Concerning  the  bodies  of  the  wicked.  He  saith 
[Isaiah  Ixviii.  22]:  "There  is  no  peace,  saith  the  Lord,  unto 
the  wicked  " ;  and  concerning  the  souls  of  the  wicked.  He  saith 
[I  Samuel  xxv.  29]:  "  And  the  soul  of  thy  enemies  will  he  hurl 
away,  as  out  of  the  middle  of  the  sling." 

We  have  learned:  R,  Eliezer  said:  "  The  souls  of  righteous 
men  are  deposited  underneath  the  throne  of  honor,  as  it  is  writ- 
ten: 'Yet  will  the  soul  of  my  lord  be  bound  in  the  bond  of 
life  ' ;  and  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  crowded  together  until 
they  are  crushed,  as  it  is  written:  '  The  souls  of  thy  enemies 
will  he  hurl  away.'  "  "  How  is  it  with  the  souls  of  men  who  are 
neither  righteous  nor  wicked  ?"  asked  Rabba  of  R.  Na'hman. 
He  answered:  "  If  I  were  dead,  ye  would  not  know  it."  Sam- 
uel said:  The  souls  of  the  righteous,  of  the  ordinary  men,  and 
of  the  wicked  are  given  over  to  the  angel  whose  name  is  Domah, 
who  has  charge  of  all  souls.  The  souls  of  the  righteous  are  given 
their  resting-place  soon ;  the  others  are  not  given  rest  until  they 
come  before  the  divine  judgment. 

Said  R.  Mari:  "The  bodies  of  righteous  men  also  decom- 
pose, as  it  is  written:  '  When  the  dust  will  return  to  the  earth, 
as  it  was.'  " 

Diggers  were  digging  some  earth  belonging  to  R.  Na'hman. 
They  came  to  the  grave  where  R.  Achai  bar  Yashia  was  buried, 


360  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

and  the  corpse  scolded  them.  The  diggers  came  to  R.  Na'h- 
man,  and  told  him  that  a  man  who  was  buried  on  his  ground  had 
scolded  them.  So  R.  Na'hman  went  himself  to  the  grave,  and 
asked:  "Who  art  thou,  Master?"  and  the  man  in  the  grave 
answered:  "  I  am  called  Achai  bar  Yashia."  Said  R.  Na'hman 
to  him:  "  Did  not  R.  Mari  say,  that  the  bodies  of  the  right- 
eous shall  turn  to  dust  ? "  and  the  corpse  replied :  "  Who  is  this 
Mari  ?  I  know  him  not."  But  R.  Na'hman  persisted:  "  It  is 
written:  '  When  the  dust  shall  return  to  the  earth,  as  it  was.*  " 
And  the  corpse  retorted:  "  He  who  taught  thee  Ecclesiastes, 
did  not  teach  thee  Proverbs,  where  it  is  written  [Ch.  xiv.  30] : 
'  Jealousy  is  the  rottenness  of  the  bones  ' ;  and  if  thy  teacher 
had  explained  this  to  thee,  thou  wouldst  have  known,  that  he 
who  hath  jealousy  in  his  heart,  his  bones  shall  rot  after  death, 
but  he  who  hath  no  jealousy  in  his  heart,  his  bones  shall  not  rot. 
Thereupon  R.  Na'hman  felt  the  dead  man's  bones,  and  truly 
they  were  sound.  So  he  said  to  him:  "  Let  the  Master  arise  and 
go  home  with  me  for  a  while."  And  the  dead  man  answered: 
"  By  this  remark  thou  hast  proven  to  me  that  thou  hast  not 
even  studied  the  prophets,  for  it  is  written  [Ezekiel  xxxvii.  13] : 
'  And  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord,  when  I  open  your  graves, 
and  when  I  cause  you  to  come  up  out  of  your  graves  '  (for  this 
would  tell  thee,  that  only  the  Lord  can  make  me  arise,  and  still 
thou  askest  me  to  go  with  thee)."  "  Yea,"  quoth  R.  Na'hman; 
"  but  there  is  another  passage  [Genesis  iii.  19] :  '  For  dust  thou 
art,  and  to  dust  thou  shalt  return.'"  "This  will,  however, 
be  only  one  hour  before  the  final  resurrection,"  answered  the 
corpse. 

A  certain  Sadducee  said  to  R.  Abuha:  "  Ye  say  that  the 
souls  of  the  righteous  are  deposited  underneath  the  throne  of 
honor.  How,  then,  could  the  woman  of  the  familiar  spirit 
whom  King  Saul  consulted,*  bring  up  the  soul  of  Samuel?" 
R.  Abuha  answered:  "  That  happened  during  the  first  twelve- 
month after  the  death  of  Samuel,  as  we  have  learned  in  a  Bo- 
raitha,  that  during  the  first  twelvemonth  the  souls  of  the  deceased 
come  up  and  down ;  but  after  that  period  the  soul  ascends  to 
heaven  and  does  not  return." 

Said  R.  Jehudah,  the  son  of  R.  Samuel  bar  Shila,  in  the 
name  of  Rabh:  "  From  the  funeral  sermon  held  over  the  remains 
of  the  deceased,  it  may  be  observed  whether  they  will  enter  the 

*  See  I  Samuel  xxviii. 


TRACT    SAHHArH.  361 

kingdom  of  Heaven  or  not."  (If  the  funeral  sermon  is  in  the 
form  of  a  eulogy  and  the  deceased  was  much  beloved,  it  can  be 
presumed  that  he  will  have  a  happy  time  in  the  beyond.)  This 
is  not  so!  For  did  not  Rabh  say  to  R.  Samuel  bar  Shila:  "  See 
that  thou  makest  my  funeral  oration  exceeding  touching,  for  I 
shall  bo  there."  R.  Jehudah  meant  to  say,  that  when  the  ser- 
mon is  touching,  and  elicits  a  responsive  chord  in  the  breasts  of 
the  audience;  for  some  orations  may  be  made  ever  so  touching, 
but  if  the  deceased  was  not  deserving,  it  will  produce  no  effect 
whatever.  Said  Abayi  to  Rabba:  "  Thou,  Master,  who  hast 
not  a  single  friend  in  Pumbaditha,  who  will  mourn  thy  death  ?" 
"  Thou  and  Rabba  bar  R.  Hana  will  suffice,"  answered  Rabba. 

R.  A'ha  asked  Rabh:  "  Who  is  the  man  that  will  live  in  the 
world  to  come?"  He  answered  by  quoting  the  verse  [Isaiah 
XXX.  21]:  "  And  thy  ears  shall  hear  the  word  behind  thee,  say- 
ing. This  is  the  way;  walk  ye  in  it,  when  ye  turn  to  the  right 
hand  and  when  ye  turn  to  the  left."  *  R.  Hanina  said:  "  The 
man  who  gives  satisfaction  to  our  masters." 

It  is  written  [Ecclesiastes  xii.  5]:  "And  the  mourners  go 
about  the  streets."  The  Galileans  said:  "  Do  such  things  as 
will  be  spoken  of  to  thy  credit  in  thy  funeral  sermon  "  ;  and  the 
Judaeans  said:  "  Do  such  things  as  will  be  spoken  of  after  thy 
burial."  There  is  no  difference  in  the  two  statements,  for  in 
Galilee  the  funeral  sermon  was  held  before  burial,  and  in  Judaea 
after  burial. 

We  have  learned  (in  the  Mishna  Abhoth):  "  One  day  before 
thy  death,  thou  shalt  repent  of  thy  sins,"  said  R.  Eliezer;  and 
his  disciples  asked  him,  "  Can  a  man  know  on  which  day  he  will 
die?"  and  he  answered:  "For  just  that  reason,  he  should 
repent  to-day,  lest  he  die  to-morrow.  Thus  all  his  days  will  be 
spent  in  repentance.  So  also  hath  Solomon  said  in  his  wisdom 
[Ecclesiastes  ix.  8] :  *  At  all  times  let  thy  garments  be  white, 
and  let  not  oil  be  wanting  on  thy  head.'  "  Commenting  upon 
this,  R.  Johanan  ben  Zakkai  said:  "  This  is  illustrated  by  a  par- 
able about  a  king  who  invited  his  retainers  to  a  banquet,  but  did 
not  state  the  time;  the  wise  among  them  dressed  and  were 
ready,  standing  in  front  of  the  palace,  for  they  said:  '  In  a 
king's  house  nothing  is  wanting.  Perhaps  the  banquet  takes 
place  to-day.'     The  fools,  however,  went  about  their  business, 

*  The  significance  of  the  verse  is  explained  by  Rashi  as  follows  :  When  we  hear 
of  a  man  who  has  died,  and  we  are  told  to  walk  in  his  ways  and  to  do  as  he  did,  such 
a  man  will  live  in  the  world  to  come. 


362  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

saying:  '  Can  a  banquet  be  given  without  preparation  ?*  Sud- 
denly the  king  called  in  his  retainers  to  the  banquet.  The  wise 
went  in  becomingly  attired,  while  the  fools  went  in  in  their 
working  clothes.  The  king  was  well  pleased  with  the  wise,  and 
angry  with  the  fools,  and  said :  *  Those  that  are  prepared  and 
attired  for  the  banquet  shall  sit  down,  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry ; 
but  those  that  are  not,  shall  stand  and  look  on,  but  shall  receive 
nothing.'  "  Said  the  son-in-law  of  R.  Meir,  in  the  latter's  name: 
Then  it  would  appear  as  if  those  standing  were  waiting  upon  those 
who  were  sitting  (and  they  would  not  be  ashamed).  They  were 
also  to  sit  down,  but  while  the  others  ate  they  would  be  hungry, 
and  while  the  others  drank  they  would  remain  thirsty,  as  it  is 
written  [Isaiah  Ixv.  13  and  14]:  "  Therefore,  thus  hath  said  the 
Lord  Eternal,  Behold,  my  servants  shall  eat,  but  ye  shall  be 
hungry;  behold,  my  servants  shall  drink,  but  ye  shall  be  thirsty; 
behold,  my  servants  shall  rejoice,  but  ye  shall  be  made  ashamed  ; 
behold,  my  servants  shall  sing  for  joy  of  heart,  but  ye  shall  cry 
out  from  pain  of  heart,  and  from  a  broken  spirit  shall  ye  howl  "  ; 
and  on  this  account  it  is  written:  "  At  all  times  let  thy  garments 
be  white,"  etc. 


CHAPTER    XXIV. 

REGULATIONS  CONCERNING  A  MAN  WHO  IS  OVERTAKEN  BY  DUSK  ON 
THE  EVE  OF  SABBATH  WHILE  TRAVELLING,  AND  CONCERNING 
FEEDING    OF    CATTLE. 

MISHNA:  One  who  (on  '..nc  eve  of  Sabbath)  is  overtaken 
by  the  dusk  on  the  road  must  give  his  purse  to  a  Gentile  (while 
it  is  yet  day).  If  there  is  no  Gentile  with  him,  he  must  put  it 
on  the  ass.  As  soon  as  he  arrives  at  the  outmost  court  (dwelling 
of  the  first  town  or  village  he  reaches),  he  must  take  off  all  such 
things  as  may  be  handled  on  the  Sabbath  ;  and  as  for  the  things 
which  must  not  be  handled  he  must  loosen  the  cords,  so  that 
they  fall  off  themselves. 

GEMARA:  Why  was  it  allowed  for  a  man  to  give  his  purse 
to  the  Gentile  accompanying  him  [he  (the  Gentile)  acts  for 
him]  ?  Because  it  was  known  to  the  rabbis  that  a  man  is  anx- 
ious about  his  money,  and  if  it  were  not  allowed,  he  might 
carry  it  himself  in  public  ground.  Said  Rabha :  "  He  may  do 
this  with  his  own  purse;  but  if  he  found  something,  he  must  not 
have  it  carried  for  him."  Is  this  not  self-evident  ?  Did  we  not 
learn  in  the  Mishna,  "  his  purse  "  ?  We  might  assume  that  the 
same  would  apply  to  something  found,  and  the  Mishna  says  only 
"  his  purse,"  because  that  is  the  usual  occurrence;  hence  Rabha 
teaches  us  as  mentioned.  Even  in  the  case  of  something  which 
was  found,  the  prohibition  applies  only  if  the  man  had  not  yet 
had  it  in  his  hand ;  but  if  he  had,  it  is  regarded  the  same  as  his 
purse. 

"  If  there  is  no  Gentile  with  him,"  etc.  If  there  is  a  Gentile 
with  him,  he  must  give  his  purse  to  the  Gentile.  Why  not  put 
it  on  the  ass  in  the  first  place  ?  Because  concerning  the  ass 
there  is  a  commandment  to  let  it  rest,  but  no  such  commandment 
exists  for  a  Gentile.  How  is  the  case  if  the  man  had  accom- 
panying him  an  ass,  a  deaf-mute,*  an  idiot,  and  a  minor?  To 
whom  must  he  give  his  purse  in  that  event  ?    He  must  put  it  on 

*  A  deaf-route  is  exempt  b)  law  from  keeping  any  commandments. 

363 


364  THE    BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

the  ass.  Why  so  ?  Because  the  deaf-mute  and  the  minor  are 
human  beings,  and  he  might  by  accident  give  it  to  an  Israelite 
who  was  not  a  deaf-mute  or  a  minor.  How  is  it  if  he  had  with 
him  a  deaf-mute  and  an  idiot  only  ?  He  must  give  it  to  the 
idiot  (because  a  deaf-mute  has  more  sense  than  an  idiot).  How 
is  it  with  an  idiot  and  a  minor  ?  He  must  give  it  to  the  idiot. 
All  this  has  been  finally  decided,  but  the  question  that  presented 
itself  to  the  schoolmen  was,  to  whom  the  purse  must  be  given  if 
the  man  had  with  him  a  deaf-rr-ite  and  a  minor.  Some  say  he 
should  give  it  to  the  deaf-mute,  and  others,  to  the  minor. 

How  is  it  if  the  man  have  nobody  along,  no  Gentile,  no  ass, 
no  deaf-mute,  no  idiot,  and  no  minor  ?  What  should  he  do 
then  ?  Said  R.  Itz'hak:  "  There  was  another  mode  of  proced- 
ure, which  the  sages  would  not  reveal."  What  was  that  ?  He 
should  carry  it  less  than  four  ells  at  a  time  {i.e.,  carry  it  a  little 
less  than  four  ells  and  stop,  then  start  and  carry  it  on  again  for 
less  than  four  ells,  and  so  on).  Why  would  the  sages  not  reveal 
this  ?  Because  it  is  written  [Proverbs  xxv.  2]  :  "  It  is  the  honor 
of  God  to  conceal  a  thing;  but  the  honor  of  kings  is  to  search 
out  a  matter."  Where  is  the  honor  of  God  concerned  in  this 
matter  ?  Perhaps  the  man  will  not  stop,  but  go  on  and  carry  it 
over  four  ells. 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Eliezer  said:  "  On  the 
day  when  the  eighteen  precautionary  measures  were  instituted 
in  the  attic  of  Hananiah  ben  Hizkyah  ben  Garon  (this  measure 
concerning  the  purse  of  the  traveller  was  also  instituted,  viz., 
that  he  should  not  carry  it  but  give  it  to  the  Gentile),  and  the 
measure  of  laws  was  made  heaping  full."  R.  Jehoshua,  how- 
ever, says,  that  the  measure  was  smoothened  in  too  great  a 
degree,*  and  we  have  learned  that  R.  Eliezer  meant  to  say  what 
his  simile  illustrates ;  viz.  :  There  was  a  basket  filled  with 
cucumbers  and  beets  to  the  brim;  and  if  a  man  put  in  mustard- 
seed,  there  is  an  addition,  without,  however,  forcing  out  any- 
thing else.  Thus  the  measure  was  full,  but  not  overflowing. 
R.  Jehoshua,  however,  compares  it  as  follows:  There  was  a  tub 
filled  with  honey,  and  nuts  were  thrown  into  it,  in  consequence 
of  which  the  honey  overflowed  and  some  was  spilled.  (This 
means,  that  by  the  institution  of  those  precautionary  measures 
the  Mosaic  laws  were  undermined.) 

The  Master  said:  "  If  there  was  no  Gentile  with  him,  he 

♦  See  Appendix. 


TRACT    SAbBAlfl.  365 

should  put  it  on  the  ass  ? "  How  is  it  that  he  may  do  this  ?  If 
he  put  it  on  the  ass,  he  will  be  compelled  to  drive  the  ass,  and 
surely  this  is  also  labor,  which  is  prohibited  on  the  Sabbath,  as 
it  is  written  [Exod.  xx.  10]:  "On  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any 
work."  Said  R.  Ada  bar  Abha:  The  man  must  put  the  purse  on 
the  ass,  while  the  latter  is  walking  along;  in  that  case,  no  trans- 
fer from  one  fixed  point  takes  place  (because  while  both  are 
walking  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  purse  is  resting  in  one  partic- 
ular place).  It  is,  however,  impossible  that  the  ass  should  not 
rest  at  some  place  for  a  little  while  ?  When  the  ass  rests,  the 
man  removes  the  purse;  and  when  it  commences  to  walk  again, 
he  puts  it  back.  If  that  is  so,  it  would  be  the  same  if  he  would 
transfer  his  purse  to  a  fellow-Israelite  while  walking,  and  he  would 
never  be  guilty  of  the  act  of  transferring  from  one  (fixed)  place 
and  depositing  in  another?  Said  R.  Papa:  An  act  which,  if 
committed  by  one  man  unassisted,  would  make  him  liable  for  a 
sin-offering  {e.g.,  if  he,  while  running  or  walking,  should  pick 
up  something  off  the  ground  even  without  stopping,  he  would 
become  liable  for  a  sin-offering),  he  must  not  commit  zciih  the 
assistance  of  a  companion ;  but  if  he  did  so,  he  is  not  liable  for 
a  sin-offering  {e.g.,  if  he  picked  up  a  thing  and  placed  it  on  his 
companion  while  the  latter  was  walking,  in  that  event  neither  is 
culpable,  for  the  one  did  not  deposit  it  in  a  fixed  place,  and  the 
other  did  not  remove  it  from  a  fixed  place).  Such  acts,  however, 
as  must  not  be  committed  with  the  aid  of  a  companion  may  be 
done  with  the  assistance  of  an  ass  in  the  first  place. 

R.  Ada  bar  Abha  said  again  :  "  If  a  man  has  a  bundle  on  his 
shoulders  before  dusk  on  the  Sabbath  while  on  the  road,  he  may 
run  with  the  burden  until  he  reaches  home,  but  he  must  not 
walk  his  usual  gait."  Why  so  ?  Because,  if  he  walks  in  the 
usual  manner,  he  might  stop  (and  by  stopping  carr>'  out  the  pro- 
hibited transfer  from  one  fixed  point  and  depositing  in  another). 
When  he  reaches  home,  however,  he  must  stop  for  some  time, 
and  thus  he  would  bring  a  thing  from  public  ground  into  private 
ground  ?  The  remedy  for  this  is,  to  throw  the  bundle  from  his 
shoulders  backwards,  and  not  in  the  usual  manner. 

Rabha  the  brother  of  R.  Mari  bar  Rachel  taught  the  follow- 
ing decree  in  the  name  of  R.  Johanan :  "  One  who  drives  cattle 
on  the  Sabbath  (even  if  they  are  burdened)  is  free."  Why  so  ? 
If  he  did  so  unintentionally,  he  cannot  be  liable  for  a  sin-offer- 
ing, because  Sabbath  laws  are  identical  with  those  of  idolatry. 
In  like  manner,  as  a  man  cannot  be  guilty  of  idolatry  unless  he 
VOL.  u. — 12 


366  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

worship  with  his  own  body,  so  it  is  with  the  Sabbatical  law.  If 
he  perform  labor  through  the  medium  of  his  cattle,  without 
doing  any  himself,  he  cannot  be  guilty.  Even  if  he  did  it  inten- 
tionally, he  is  also  not  guilty.  Why  so  ?  Because  we  have 
learned  in  a  Mishna  (Tract  Sanhedrin) :  "  Among  those  who  are 
subject  to  capital  punishment  (by  stoning)  is  he  who  violates  the 
Sabbath  by  an  act  which,  if  done  intentionally,  carries  with  it 
such  punishment  (stoning),  and  which,  if  done  unintentionally, 
makes  one  liable  for  a  sin-offering."  Hence,  if  the  uninten- 
tional performance  of  such  an  act  does  not  carry  with  it  liability 
to  bring  a  sin-offering,  its  intentional  performance  cannot  carry 
with  it  the  punishment  of  stoning,  nor  the  punishment  of 
stripes ;  because,  where  the  penalty  for  the  violation  of  a  nega- 
tive commandment  is  death,  stripes  cannot  be  inflicted ;  and 
even  according  to  the  Tana  who  holds  that  stripes  can  be  inflicted 
for  such  violation,  in  this  case  it  could  not  be  done,  because, 
were  the  verse  to  be  read,  "  Thou  shalt  not  do  any  labor,  nor 
thy  cattle,"  it  would  be  right;  but  the  verse  distinctly  says, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  do  any  labor,  neither  thou,  etc.,  nor  thy  cat- 
tle." Hence,  when  the  work  was  not  done  jointly  by  the  man 
and  his  cattle,  he  cannot  be  punished  in  any  manner  for  a  viola- 
tion of  the  Sabbath. 

''  As  soon  as  he  arrives  at  the  outmost  court,''  etc.  Said  R. 
Huna:  "  If  the  ass  was  laden  with  glassware,  he  may  bring  cush- 
ions and  place  them  on  the  ground,  so  that  when  he  loosens  the 
cords  the  glassware  may  fall  on  the  cushions  and  escape  being 
broken."  We  have  learned,  however,  that  such  vessels  as  may 
be  handled  on  the  Sabbath  may  be  removed  from  the  ass ;  and 
why  may  not  the  glassware  be  handled  ?  R.  Huna  refers  to 
glassware  which  belongs  to  a  surgeon,  and  being  dirty  (bloody) 
is  unfit  for  use  in  a  household.  In  that  case,  then,  the  man 
would  render  the  cushions  which  he  places  on  the  ground  to 
receive  the  falling  glassware  unfit  for  their  proper  use,  and  this  is 
prohibited  on  the  Sabbath  ?  The  cushions  are  only  to  be  used 
in  order  to  break  the  fall  of  the  glassware,  and  after  the  glassware 
rolls  off  on  to  the  ground,  the  cushions  can  be  used  as  before. 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  R.  Simeon  ben  Jochai  said: 
"  If  a  sheaf  of  grain  (the  tithes  of  which  had  not  yet  been  sepa- 
rated) is  on  the  back  of  the  ass,  the  man  may  push  it  off  with  his 
head,  so  that  it  fall  to  the  ground."  The  ass  of  R.  Gamaliel 
was  once  laden  with  honey,  and,  the  Sabbath  having  set  in,  R. 
GamaJid.  would  not  allow  the  ass  to  be  unloaded  until  the  Sab- 


TRACT    SARRATH.  367 

bath  was  over.  This  proved  too  mucli  for  the  animal  and  it 
dropped  dead. 

We  have  learned  in  the  Mishna,  that  such  things  as  may  be 
handled  on  Sabbath  may  be  removed  from  the  animal;  why  was 
not  the  honey  removed  ?  The  honey  had  become  spoiled.  If 
the  honey  was  spoiled,  why  was  it  brought  ?  It  was  intended  to 
be  used  for  the  bruises  on  camels.  Then  the  cords  should  have 
been  loosened  and  the  honey  allowed  to  fall  off  ?  The  honc)' 
was  in  (inflated)  skins,  and  would  have  burst  if  allowed  to  fall. 
Then  cushions  should  have  been  placed  on  the  ground  to  receive 
them  ?  The  cushions  would  have  become  soiled,  and  thus  ren- 
dered unfit  for  use.  Pity  should  have  been  taken  on  the  animal, 
and  it  should  not  have  been  allowed  to  stand  laden  all  day  ? 
Pity  for  animals  is  only  a  rabbinical  institution  according  to 
R.  Gamaliel,  and  thus  he  could  not  observe  it  lest  he  violate  the 
Sabbath. 

Abayi  once  saw  Rabba  playing  with  his  little  son,  and  setting 
him  on  the  back  of  an  ass,  so  he  said  to  him:  "  Why!  Docs 
Master  use  an  animal  on  Sabbath!"  and  Rabba  answered: 
"  This  cannot  be  called  using  an  animal  in  the  regular  manner, 
but  just  incidental  use,  and  that  was  not  prohibited  by  the 
rabbis." 

Abayi  objected:  "  Have  we  not  learned  that  if  two  walls  of 
a  booth  (to  be  used  on  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles)  were  made 
by  hand,  and  the  third  wall  was  already  made  by  a  tree,  the 
booth  might  be  used  for  ritual  purposes;  but  it  is  not  allowed 
to  ascend  to  the  roof  of  the  booth  on  a  festival,  because  the 
tree  serves  as  a  support  to  the  roof,  and  by  ascending  the  roof 
the  tree  would  be  used,  which  is  prohibited  ?  Hence  we  see 
that,  although  that  would  be  incidental  and  not  direct  use,  still  it 
is  prohibited  ?  "  Rabba  answered:  "  In  the  case  cited  by  thee, 
a  tree  is  referred  to,  the  branches  of  which  were  also  part  of  the 
roof."  The  Mishna  seems  to  have  this  meaning  attributed  to  it 
by  Rabba,  for  in  a  later  clause  it  is  stated,  that  should  the  tree 
(which  partly  supports  the  booth)  be  removed,  and  the  booth  can 
stand  by  itself,  one  may  ascend  it;  hence  the  tree  is  regarded  as 
an  independent  wall. 

MISHNA:  One  may  untie  bundles  of  straw  for  cattle,  also 
strew  stalks  for  them,  but  one  must  not  undo  tied  bundles  of 
Zirin.*     Herbs  used  as  fodder,  and  carob-pods,  must  not  be  cut 

*  This  term  will  be  explained  in  the  Clcm.ira  fartlier  on. 


368  THE   BABYLONIAN    TALMUD. 

up  for  cattle,  large  or  small.  R.  Jehudah  permits  the  cutting 
up  of  carob-pods  for  small  cattle. 

GEMARA:  Said  R.  Huna:  "  There  is  no  difference  between 
bundles  of  straw  and  stalks,  except  that  the  former  are  tied  twice 
while  the  latter  are  trebly  tied,  and  by  Zirin  is  meant  the  young 
branches  of  a  cedar-tree  (which  when  young  are  still  tender  and 
are  eaten  by  cattle);  and  the  Mishna  should  be  explained  thus: 
One  may  untie  bundles  of  straw  for  cattle,  and  also  strew  them, 
and  the  same  may  be  done  with  stalks,  but  not  with  Zirin ;  the 
latter  must  neither  be  untied  nor  strewn."  Said  R.  Hisda: 
"  What  reason  has  R.  Huna  for  explaining  the  Mishna  in  this 
manner  ?  He  means  to  say,  that  on  account  of  such  things  as 
are  already  proper  fodder  for  cattle  one  may  trouble  himself  on 
Sabbath,  but  on  account  of  such  as  must  first  be  prepared  as 
fodder,  one  should  not  trouble  himself."  R.  Jehudah,  how- 
ever, says,  that  bundles  of  straw  and  Zirin  are  identical,  except 
that  the  former  were  tied  twice  and  the  latter  trebly,  but  stalks 
signify  cedar  boughs;  and  he  explains  the  Mishna  thus:  "  We 
may  untie  bundles  of  straw  for  cattle,  but  not  strew  them ; 
stalks  may  also  be  strewn ;  the  Zirin,  however,  may  be  untied, 
but  not  strewn."  Said  Rabha:  "What  is  the  reason  for  R, 
Jehudah 's  explanation  ?  He  holds,  that  we  may  prepare  things 
for  the  use  of  cattle,  but  we  must  not  trouble  ourselves  on  ac- 
count of  such  things  as  are  already  fit  fodder  for  cattle." 

An  objection  was  made  to  the  foregoing  (based  on  the  latter 
clause  of  the  Mishna):  "  Herbs  used  for  fodder  and  carob-pods 
must  not  be  cut  up  for  cattle."  As  herbs  are  mentioned  in  con- 
junction with  carob-pods,  we  must  assume,  that  as  the  herbs 
were  soft,  so  were  also  the  carob-pods ;  and,  it  being  prohibited  to 
cut  them  up,  we  see  that  with  such  things  as  are  already  proper 
fodder  we  must  not  trouble  ourselves,  and  this  is  contrary  to  the 
dictum  of  R.  Huna  ?  R.  Huna  might  say  to  the  contrary,  that 
as  the  carob-pods  are  hard,  so  also  are  the  herbs.  Where  do  we 
find  that  herbs  should  be  cut  up  for  cattle,  they  generally  eat 
them  as  they  are  ?     This  refers  to  young  calves  and  mule-colts. 

(Another  objection  was  raised.)  Come  and  hear:  One  may 
cut  up  pumpkins  for  cattle  and  carrion  for  dogs.  Then  we  may 
say,  that  as  carrion  is  soft,  so  also  are  the  pumpkins;  and  hence 
we  see,  that  we  may  trouble  ourselves  even  with  such  articles  as 
are  already  fit  fodder  for  cattle,  and  this  is  contradictory  to  R. 
Jehudah's  opinion  ?  R.  Jehudah  might  say  to  the  contrary, 
that  as  the  pumpkins  were  hard,  so  was  also  the  carrion.      How 


TRACT   SABBATH.  369 

can  that  be  ?  Supposing  it  was  the  carcass  of  an  elephant,  or 
the  dogs  were  young  and  could  not  eat  carrion  without  having 
it  cut  up  for  them. 

MISHNA:  A  camel  must  not  be  crammed  (to  fatten  it),  nor 
may  it  be  forced  to  eat :  but  the  food  may  be  put  into  its  mouth. 
Calves  must  not  be  crammed,  but  the  food  may  be  put  into 
their  mouths.  Poultry  may  be  fed  and  crammed;  water  may  be 
poured  on  bran,  but  the  bran  must  not  be  kneaded.  One  must 
not  put  water  before  bees,  or  before  doves  in  a  dove-cot ;  but 
one  may  put  it  before  geese,  before  poultry,  and  before  house- 
pigeons. 

GEMARA:  What  is  meant  by  "  must  not  be  crammed  "  ? 
Said  R.  Jehudah:  "  By  that  is  meant,  that  the  stomach  of  the 
camel  should  not  be  turned  into  a  feed-bag."  Can  such  a 
thing  be  done  ?  Said  R.  Jeremiah  of  Diphti :  "  Yea;  I  saw  with 
my  own  eyes,  that  an  itinerant  merchant  fed  his  camel  a  meas- 
ure of  grain,  and  when  it  had  consumed  that,  he  forced  another 
measure  down  its  throat." 

Calves  must  not  be  cravimcd,  but  the  food  tnay  be  put  into 
their  mouths,"  etc.  What  is  the  difference  between  cramming 
and  putting  food  into  the  calf's  mouth?  R.  Jehudah  said,  that 
cramming  is  accomplished  when  the  food  is  stuffed  down  into 
the  calf's  mouth  so  that  it  cannot  eject  it,  and  putting  food  into 
its  mouth  is  merely  as  is  implied  by  the  term ;  and  R.  Hisda 
said,  that  in  both  cases  the  food  is  forced  down  so  far  that  the 
calf  cannot  eject  it;  but  in  cramming,  some  instrument  is  used, 
and  the  other  is  done  by  hand. 

R.  Joseph  objected :  We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  that 
poultry  may  be  crammed,  and  so  much  the  more  food  may  be 
given  to  the  poultry  a  little  at  a  time.  The  contrary  is  the  case 
with  doves.  Food  must  not  be  given  them  even  a  little  at  a 
time,  and  much  less  may  they  be  crammed.  Now  what  is  the 
difference  between  cramming  and  forcing  them  to  cat  a  little  at 
a  time  ?  Shall  we  assume  that  by  cramming  is  meant,  forcing 
the  food  down  by  hand,  and  by  giving  them  food  a  little  at  a  time 
is  meant,  throwing  it  to  them  ?  If  so,  why  should  doves  not  be 
fed  in  that  manner  ?  Is  it  then  prohibited  to  throw  them  food  ? 
We  must  therefore  say,  that  in  both  cases  the  food  is  given  by 
hand,  but  in  cramming  the  food  is  forced  down  so  that  it  cannot 
be  ejected,  while  in  the  other  case  it  can  be  ejected.  If  this 
applies  to  poultry,  then  we  must  certainly  assume  that,  as  for 
calves,  cramming  is  done  by  forcing  the  food  down  with  an  in- 


37° 


THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 


strument,  and  this  would  be  contradictory  to  R.  Jehudah  ?  R. 
Jehudah  might  say,  that  by  feeding  poultry  is  meant,  throwing 
food  to  them ;  and  the  reason  that  one  must  not  feed  doves  is 
because  they  do  not  belong  to  him,  whereas  poultry  belongs  to 
him  and  must  be  fed  by  him,  as  we  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha, 
that  one  may  give  food  to  a  dog  but  not  to  a  pig;  and  the  reason 
is,  that  a  man  is  in  duty  bound  to  feed  his  dog,  but  a  pig  that 
he  does  not  own  he  need  not  feed.  Said  R.  Ashi:  "  This  we 
also  learn  from  our  Mishna:  '  One  must  not  put  it  before  bees, 
or  before  doves  in  a  dove-cot ;  but  we  may  put  it  before  geese, 
poultry,  and  house-pigeons.*  "  We  must  assume  the  reason  of 
the  Mishna  to  be  because  one  is  not  obliged  to  take  care  of  the 
bees  and  doves,  but  must  take  care  of  those  which  he  owns. 
According  to  this,  then,  why  is  water  only  spoken  of,  why  not 
wheat  or  barley  ?  We  must  say  that  water  is  easily  obtainable, 
and  hence  there  is  no  necessity  to  trouble  one's  self  on  that 
account. 

R.  Jonah  taught  at  the  door  of  Nassi :  It  is  written  [Prov- 
erbs xxix.  7] :  "  The  righteous  considereth  the  cause  of  the  in- 
digent." The  righteous,  synonymous  with  the  Holy  One, 
blessed  be  He,  knoweth  that  a  dog  hath  not  much  food,  and 
hath  thus  ordained,  that  the  food  in  his  stomach  remains  undi- 
gested for  three  days,  as  we  have  learned  in  a  Mishna :  How 
long  must  the  food  (carrion)  remain  in  the  stomach,  that  it  may 
still  be  considered  unclean?  In  the  stomach  of  a  dog  three  days, 
but  in  the  stomach  of  a  bird  or  a  fish  only  as  long  as  it  would 
take  it  to  burn  up  if  thrown  into  the  fire. 

Said  R.  Hamnuna:  "  From  what  was  said  above,  it  may  be 
implied  that  one  may  throw  food  before  a  dog."  How  much  ? 
Said  R.  Mari :  "  A  small  piece,  and  the  dog  should  immediately 
be  driven  off."  This  refers  to  a  dog  in  the  field,  but  within  the 
city  a  strange  dog  should  not  be  fed  at  all,  lest  he  run  after  the 
man ;  however,  a  dog  belonging  to  him  may  be  fed. 

Said  R.  Papa:  "  There  is  nothing  poorer  than  a  dog,  and 
nothing  richer  than  a  pig  (meaning  that  a  dog  is  very  fastidious 
about  food,  while  a  pig  will  eat  anything)." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha,  in  support  of  the  dictum  of  R. 
Jehudah:  What  is  the  difference  between  cramming  and  putting 
food  into  the  mouth  of  a  calf  ?  Cramming  is  accomplished  by 
laying  the  calf  down,  forcing  open  its  mouth,  and  stuffing  it 
with  soaked  grain ;  and  putting  food  into  its  mouth  is  merely 
feeding  and  watering  it  separately,  while  the  calf  is  standing. 


TRACT    SAHIJATH.  371 

"  Poultry  maybe  fed  and  crammed,"  etc.  Said  Abayi :  "  I 
asked  my  master,  with  whose  opinion  was  the  Mishna  in  con- 
formity, and  he  told  me  with  that  of  R.  Jose  bar  Jehudah,  as 
we  have  learned:  Water  must  not  be  poured  on  bran,  said 
Rabbi,  but  R.  Jose  bar  Jehudah  said  that  it  may  be  done." 

The  rabbis  taught:  "  When  water  is  poured  on  parched  corn 
the  corn  must  not  be  kneaded  on  Sabbath,  but  others  say  that 
it  maybe  kneaded."  Who  is  meant  by  "  others  "  ?  Said  R. 
Hisda:  "  R.  Jose  bar  Jehudah."  Such  is  the  case,  however, 
only  when  it  is  done  differently  than  on  a  week-day.  How  can 
it  be  done  differently  ?  By  kneading  a  little  at  a  time  and  not 
in  a  lump.  All  agree,  however,  that  Shthitha*  may  be  kneaded 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  that  Egyptian  beer  may  be  drunk.  Was  it 
not  said,  that  kneading  was  not  allowed  on  Sabbath  ?  This 
presents  no  difficulty.  Fine  corn  may  be  kneaded,  but  coarse 
must  not;  and  even  then  it  must  be  kneaded  differently  than  on 
a  week-day.  How  can  this  be  done  ?  On  week-days  the  vine- 
gar is  first  put  in  and  then  the  Shthitha,  and  on  Sabbath  the 
latter  should  be  put  in  first. 

Levi  the  son  of  R.  Huna  bar  Hyya  once  found  the  herder  of 
his  father's  cattle  pouring  water  on  bran  and  giving  it  to  the 
cattle.  He  scolded  him.  Afterwards  R.  Huna  met  his  son,  and 
said  to  him :  Thus  said  the  father  of  thy  mother  in  the  name  of 
Rabh  (meaning  R.  Jeremiah  bar  Aba):  "  It  is  allowed  to  pour 
water  on  bran  but  not  to  put  the  mixed  bran  into  the  mouth  of 
the  cattle  (but  young  cattle,  that  cannot  eat  themselves,  may  be 
fed  by  hand). "  And  this  maybe  done,  providing  it  is  done 
differently  than  on  a  week-day.  How  should  that  be  done  ? 
The  bran  should  only  be  stirred  once  lengthwise  and  once 
crosswise.  It  will  not  mix  well,  however,  in  this  manner.  Said 
R.  Jehudah:  "  Then  it  should  be  poured  into  another  vessel." 

We  found  in  the  diary  of  Zera:  "  I  asked  of  my  Master  R. 
Hyya,  whether  kneading  was  permitted  on  the  Sabbath,  and  he 
said,  '  No.'  I  asked  him  whether  transferring  from  one  vessel 
to  another  was  permitted,  and  he  said  it  was."  Said  R.  Menas- 
seh :  "  It  is  allowed  to  give  one  animal  a  measure  of  grain,  and 
two  measures  for  two  animals,  but  one  must  not  give  three 
measures  for  two  animals."  R.  Joseph,  however,  said  that  a 
whole  Kabh,  or  even  two  Kabhs,  may  be  given  for  one  or  two  or 
three  animals,  and  Ula  said  that  even  a  Kur  or  more  may  be  given. 

*  Shthitha  is  Uic  name  of  a  dish  prepared  from  parched  com. 


372  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

It  was  written  in  the  diary  of  Levi:  "  I  related  in  the  pres- 
ence of  my  master,  who  was  Rabbi  the  Holy  (Jehudah  Hanassi), 
that  in  Babylon  they  were  kneading  Shthitha  on  Sabbath  and 
Rabbi  protested  against  it ;  but  no  one  paid  attention  to  it,  and 
he  had  no  power  to  prohibit  it,  because  R.  Jose  bar  Jehudah 
once  permitted  it  (as  mentioned  previously)." 

It  was  written  in  the  diary  of  R.  Jehoshua  ben  Levi:  "  One 
who  is  born  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  will  be  a  man,  and  not 
one  thing  will  be  in  him."  What  does  that  mean  ?  That  there 
will  not  be  any  one  good  thing  in  him  ?  Did  not  R.  Assi  say 
that  he  was  born  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  ?  Shall  we  say, 
that  not  one  bad  thing  will  be  in  him  ?  R.  Assi  said:  "  I  and 
Dimi  bar  Kakusta  were  both  born  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
and,  behold!  I  am  a  prince  and  he  is  a  leader  of  robbers!" 
What,  then,  is  meant  by  "  not  one  thing  will  be  in  him  "  ? 
This  means,  that  he  will  be  either  wholly  bad  or  wholly  good. 
"  A  man  who  was  born  on  the  second  day  of  the  week  will  be 
a  man  of  violent  passion."  Why  so  ?  Because  on  the  second 
day  the  water  was  separated.  "  A  man  born  on  the  third  day 
will  be  rich  and  lascivious."  Why  so  ?  Because  grass  was  cre- 
ated on  the  third  day.  "  A  man  born  on  the  fourth  day  will  be 
wise  and  have  a  good  memory."  Why  so  ?  Because  on  the 
fourth  day  the  lights  were  created.  "  A  man  born  on  the  fifth  day 
will  be  a  charitable  man."  Why  so  ?  Because  on  that  day  the 
fishes  and  fowls  were  created.  "  A  man  born  on  the  sixth  day 
will  be  a  very  devout  man."  [R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak  said  :  "  He 
will  be  zealous  in  the  fulfilment  of  commandments."]  "  A  man 
born  on  the  Sabbath  will  also  die  on  the  Sabbath,  because  on 
his  account  the  great  day  of  Sabbath  was  violated."  Said 
Rabba  bar  R.  Shila:  "  He  will,  however,  be  called  a  great  and 
pious  man." 

Said  R.  Hanina  to  the  men  who  related  what  was  written  in 
the  diary  above:  "  Go  and  tell  the  son  of  Levi,  that  the  fortune 
of  a  man  does  not  depend  upon  the  day,  but  upon  the  hour  he 
was  born  in.  One  who  is  born  in  the  hour  of  sunrise  will  be  a 
bright  man;  he  will  eat  and  drink  of  his  own,  but  he  will  not  be 
able  to  keep  secrets  and  will  not  be  successful  in  stealing.  One 
who  is  born  under  Venus  will  be  a  rich  man,  but  will  be  lascivi- 
ous, because  fire  is  generated  under  Venus.  One  who  is  born 
under  Mercury  will  be  bright  and  wise,  because  that  star  is  the 
scribe  of  the  Sun.  One  who  is  born  under  the  Moon  will  be 
sickly  or  troubled.      He  will  build  and  demolish,  will  not  eat  and 


TRACT   SABBATH.  373 

drink  his  own,  but  will  keep  secrets,  and  will  be  successful  in 
stealing.  One  who  is  born  under  Saturn  will  have  all  his  thoughts 
and  aims  come  to  naught ;  and  others  say,  to  the  contrary,  all 
aims  against  him  will  come  to  naught. .  One  who  is  born  under 
Jupiter  will  be  a  righteous  man,  and  R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak 
said  he  will  be  very  devout.  One  who  is  born  under  Mars  will 
be  a  man  who  will  shed  blood.  He  will  either  be  a  surgeon  or 
a  robber,  a  butcher  or  a  circumciser,  said  R.  Ashi.  Rabba  said 
that  he  was  born  under  Mars.  Said  Abayi  to  him:  "Thou, 
Master,  reprovcst  men,  and  whom  thou  reprovest,  he  dicth ; 
hence  thou,  also,  sheddcst  blood." 

It  was  taught:  R.  Hanina  said:  "  One  who  is  born  under 
a  lucky  star  may  be  either  rich  or  wise,  and  the  same  thing 
applies  to  Israelites  also."  R.  Johanan  said:  "An  Israelite 
docs  not  come  under  this  fate";  and  R.  Johanan  says  this 
in  accordance  with  his  dictum  elsewhere;  viz.:  Whence  do  we 
know  that  the  Israelites  are  not  subject  to  fate  ?  Because  it  is 
written  [Jeremiah  x.  2]:  "Thus  hath  said  the  Lord,  Do  not 
habituate  yourselves  in  the  way  of  the  nations,  and  at  the  signs 
of  the  heavens  be  ye  not  dismayed,  although  the  nations  should 
be  dismayed  at  them."  So  the  nations  may  be  dismayed  at  the 
signs  of  the  heavens,  but  not  the  Israelites;  and  Rabh  holds 
likewise,  that  the  Israelites  are  not  subject  to  fate.  R.  Jchudah 
said  in  the  name  of  Rabh :  Whence  do  we  know  that  the 
Israelites  are  not  subject  to  fate  ?  Because  it  is  written  [Gen- 
esis xv.  5]:  "And  he  brought  him  forth  abroad."  Abraham 
said  before  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He:  "  Creator  of  the  Uni- 
verse, lo,  one  born  in  my  house  will  be  my  heir  "  ;  and  the  Lord 
answered:  "  He  that  shall  come  forth  out  of  thy  own  bowels 
shall  be  thy  heir"  [Gen.  xv.  4].  And  Abraham  said  again  : 
"  Creator  of  the  Universe!  I  have  consulted  my  horoscope,  and 
have  found  that  I  am  not  capable  of  having  a  son  "  ;  so  the 
Lord  said  to  him:  "  Away  with  thy  horoscope  !  An  Israelite 
hath  no  fate  !  " 

Of  Samuel  it  is  also  known,  that  he  thought  the  Israelites  had 
no  destiny,  for  Samuel  and  Ablat  were  once  sitting  together,  and 
some  men  went  past  a  meadow.  Ablat  (who  was  an  astrologer) 
said  to  Samuel,  pointing  to  one  of  the  men:  "  That  man  will 
not  return.  A  snake  will  bite  him  and  he  will  die."  Said  Sam- 
uel:  "  If  he  is  an  Israelite,  he  will  come  back."  While  they 
were  talking,  the  man  came  back;  so  Ablat  arose  and  examined 
Viim,  and  he  found  a  snake  cut  in  two  on   the  man's  clothes. 


374  THE    BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

Said  Samuel  to  the  man  :  "  What  didst  thou  do  to-day,  that  thou 
hast  escaped  death  ?"  The  man  answered:  "It  is  our  custom, 
when  going  out  with  a  party  of  men,  that  we  all  contribute  our 
share  of  victuals,  and  then  have  our  meal  in  common.  I  knew 
that  one  of  our  party  had  no  (bread)  victuals,  and  not  wishing  to 
make  him  ashamed,  I  secured  the  basket  to  gather  the  food ; 
and  when  coming  up  to  him  I  pretended  to  put  in  his  share,  but 
in  reality  put  in  mine,  and  thus  he  was  not  ashamed."  "  Then 
thou  hast  committed  an  act  of  charity,"  said  Samuel;  and  when 
he  went  out  he  preached  that  charity  may  be  the  cause  of  saving 
a  man's  life,  and  not  only  from  a  violent  death,  but  also  from 
death  which  otherwise  would  have  overtaken  a  man  naturally. 

Of  R.  Aqiba  it  is  also  known,  that  he  did  not  believe  the  Is- 
raelites to  be  subject  to  fate,  for  R.  Aqiba  had  a  daughter,  and 
the  soothsayers  predicted  that  on  the  day  on  which  she  should 
enter  the  garden  a  snake  would  bite  her  and  she  would  die.  He 
was  very  much  troubled  on  that  account.  One  day  his  daughter 
took  off  her  headdress  in  the  garden,  and  the  needle  protruding 
from  it  stuck  on  the  side  of  the  fence  where  a  snake  happened 
to  be,  and  piercing  the  eye  of  the  snake,  the  latter  was  killed. 
When  R.  Aqiba's  daughter  went  back  to  the  house  the  snake 
dragged  after  her.  Asked  R.  Aqiba:  "  What  didst  thou  do  to- 
day, to  escape  death  ?"  and  she  answered:  "  At  dawn  a  man 
came  to  the  door  begging  bread.  Everybody,  however,  was  at 
the  table,  and  no  one  heard  him  but  myself.  I  took  my  own 
meal,  that  thou  gavest  me,  and  gave  it  to  him."  Said  R.  Aqiba: 
"  Thou  didst  an  act  of  charity,  and  this  saved  thee  from  death." 
He  then  went  forth  and  preached,  that  charity  may  be  the 
cause  of  saving  a  man's  life,  and  not  only  from  a  violent  death, 
but  also  from  one  that  was  to  have  come  naturally. 

R.  Na'hman  bar  Itz'hak  is  also  known  to  discountenance  the 
theory  of  the  Israelites  being  subject  to  fate ;  for  the  mother  of 
R.  Na'hman  was  told  by  astrologers  that  her  son  would  turn 
out  to  be  a  thief,  so  she  would  not  let  him  go  out  bare-headed, 
saying:  "  Always  keep  thy  head  covered,  that  thou  mayest  fear 
the  Lord,  and  pray  to  Him  for  mercy";  and  he  did  not  know 
why  she  always  told  him  this.  One  day  he  sat  underneath  a 
tree  studying,  when  his  head-wear  fell  off,  and  looking  up,  he 
saw  the  tree  filled  with  delicious  dates.  He  was  very  much 
tempted  to  take  some  of  the  fruit,  although  the  tree  did  not 
belong  to  him,  and  accordingly  climbed  the  tree,  and  bit  off 
branch  with  his  teeth. 


TRACT   SABBATH.  375 

MISHNA:  Pumpkins  may  be  cut  up  for  cattle,  and  carrion 
for  dogs.  R.  Jehudah  saith :  "  If  the  carrion  was  not  yet  carrion 
(if  the  beast  had  not  yet  died)  before  the  Sabbath,  it  must  not  be 
cut  up ;  because,  in  that  case,  it  is  not  part  of  what  had  been 
provided  (for  consumption  on  Sabbath)." 

GEMARA :  It  was  taught :  Ula  said,  the  Halakha  prevails 
according  to  R.  Jehudah,  and  of  Rabh  it  is  also  known  that 
he  agrees  with  R.  Jehudah,  as  may  be  seen  from  his  decree  con- 
cerning covers  of  a  vessel  (on  page  29).  Levi  also  admits,  that 
the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Jehudah ;  for  when  a  car- 
cass was  brought  to  him  for  decision  as  to  its  fitness  for  use,  or 
unfitness,  on  a  festival,  he  would  not  inspect  it  unless  it  had  lain 
in  the  dirt;  because,  should  he  hold  it  to  be  fit,  it  would  forth- 
with become  carrion  and  not  even  be  fit  for  dogs,  by  reason  of 
its  turning  into  carrion  on  the  festival  (and  thus  not  having  been 
provided  on  the  day  before  for  consumption  on  the  festival). 

Samuel,  however,  said,  that  the  Halakha  prevails  according 
to  R.  Simeon,  as  also  does  Zera,  because  a  Mishna  elsewhere, 
which  teaches,  that  if  an  animal  died  (on  Sabbath  or  on  a  festival) 
it  must  not  be  removed,  was  explained  by  Zera  to  refer  only  to 
such  an  animal  as  was  designated  for  a  sacrifice  and  which  must 
not  be  made  use  of  at  all ;  but  any  ordinary  carcass  may  be  re- 
moved. R.  Johanan  also  said,  that  the  Halakha  according  to 
R.  Simeon  prevails. 

Is  it  possible  that  R.  Johanan  said  this  ?  Have  we  not 
learned  that  R.  Johanan  always  holds  Halakhas  to  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  abstract  decrees  of  the  Mishna,  and  in  another 
Mishna  we  have  learned  that  the  wood  of  a  beam  that  had  been 
broken  on  a  festival  must  not  be  used  on  the  festival  ?  R. 
Johanan  claims,  that  the  Mishna  above  was  taught  in  the  name 
of  R.  Jose  bar  Jehudah. 

Come  and  hear  (another  objection):  "It  is  permitted  to 
commence  taking  from  a  heap  of  straw  on  a  festival  for  use  as 
fuel,  but  not  from  wood  designated  for  another  purpose. "  This 
is  also  taught  abstractly  (and  is  certainly  contrary  to  the  opinion 
of  R.  Simeon).  This  above  teaching  refers  to  cedar  beams  in- 
tended for  building  purposes,  and  being  very  expensive  should 
not  be  used  as  fuel,  even  according  to  R.  Simeon. 

Come  and  hear  (another  objection  based  upon  another  ab- 
stract Mishna):  "  It  is  not  permitted  to  water  or  to  slaughter 
nimals  living  in  their  wild  natural  state,  but  it  is  allowed  as  re- 
gards domestic  animals."     (This  is  also  contrary  to  R.  Simeon?) 


376  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

R.  Johanan,  however,  found  an  abstract  Mishna  that  was  in 
accord  with  R.  Simeon ;  viz.  :  That  Mishna  concerning  bones 
and  husks  which  may  be  removed  from  the  table  (page  326),  and 
R.  Johanan  holds  as  R.  Na'hman  (did  later),  that  all  decisions 
rendered  by  the  school  of  Shamai  are  in  accordance  with  the 
opinion  of  R.  Jehudah,  while  those  rendered  by  the  school  of 
Hillel  agree  with  those  of  R.  Simeon. 

It  is  related  of  R.  A'ha  and  Rabhina,  that  one  said  that  all 
laws  pertaining  to  Sabbath  remain  as  decreed  by  R.  Simeon, 
with  the  exception  of  one  thing,  that  had  been  set  aside  on  ac- 
count of  causing  disgust,  namely,  an  old  candlestick  that  had 
become  soiled  with  the  dripping  tallow;  and  the  other  said,  that 
even  in  this  instance  the  Halakha  prevails  according  to  R.  Sim- 
eon, but  the  one  thing  that  does  not  remain  as  decreed  by  R. 
Simeon  is  the  case  of  a  candlestick  which  had  been  used  on  the 
same  Sabbath.  (Both  admit,  however,)  that  as  for  the  theory 
of  designation  where  expensive  articles  are  concerned,  R.  Sim- 
eon accepts  it  in  that  case,  and  declares,  that  they  may  not  be 
used  on  Sabbath,  as  we  have  learned  in  a  Mishna  (page  268)  con- 
cerning the  large  wood-saw  and  the  ploughshare,  which,  accord- 
ing to  R.  Simeon,  also  must  not  be  handled,  because  they  are 
expensive  (and  being  used  only  by  mechanics  should  not  be  han- 
dled by  others). 

MISHNA :  A  man  may  annul  vows  (of  his  wife  or  daughter)  * 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  consult  (a  sage)  as  to  vows  (relating  to  ob- 
jects) required  for  the  Sabbath.  Window-light  may  be  shut  out 
by  blinds;  a  piece  of  stuff  may  be  measured,  and  also  a  Mikvah 
(plunge-bath),  to  ascertain  whether  it  be  of  legal  size.  It  hap- 
pened in  the  days  of  R.  Zadock's  father,  and  in  the  days  of 
Abba  Saul  ben  Botnith,  that  they  closed  a  window  with  an 
earthen  jar,  and  then  tied  another  vessel  to  a  pole  with  papyrus, 
in  order  to  ascertain  whether,  in  a  covered  vessel,  there  was  an 
opening  one  span  high  or  not.  From  them  we  learn,  that  (in 
certain  cases)  it  may  be  permitted  to  close,  to  measure,  and  to 
tie  on  the  SMbath. 

GEMARflL:  The  schoolmen  propounded  a  question :  Does 
the  term,  "  ^juired  for  the  Sabbath,"  in  connection  with  vows, 
apply  to  both'  clauses  of  that  sentence;  and  if  it  does  not, 
neither  may  be  done  on  the  Sabbath,  whence  we  shall  learn, 
that  the  time  in  which  a  man  may  annul  the  vow  of  his  wife 

*  See  Numbers  xxx.  2. 


TRACT    SABBATH.  377 

or  daughter  does  not  expire  with  the  day,  but  continues  for 
twenty-four  hours;  because,  if  the  vows  do  not  relate  to  the 
Sabbath  and  neither  of  the  above  two  clauses  may  be  executed, 
the  man  can  annul  the  vow  at  night  after  the  Sabbath;  or  shall 
we  say  that  the  term,  "  required  for  the  Sabbath,"  applies  only 
to  the  latter  clause,  that  of  consulting  as  to  vows,  and  not  to 
the  first  clause,  that  of  annulling  the  vow,  which  would  estab- 
lish the  fact  that  the  time  for  annulment  expires  with  the  day 
and  does  not  continue  for  twenty-four  hours  ?  Come  and  hear: 
R.  Zoti,  one  of  the  disciples  of  R.  Papi,  taught,  that  only 
such  vows  as  relate  to  the  Sabbath  may  be  annulled  on  the  Sab- 
bath;  thence  we  may  learn,  that  the  time  for  annulment  of 
vows  does  not  expire  for  twenty-four  hours  ?  Said  R.  Ashi  : 
"  Did  we  not  learn  (in  a  Mishna  of  Tract  Nedarim),  that  the 
time  for  annulment  of  vows  continues  for  one  day  only  ?  "  Con- 
cerning this,  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  the  Tanaim 
(as  will  be  explained  in  Tract  Nedarim). 

"  And  consult  as  to  vows,''  etc.  The  schoolmen  propounded 
a  question  :  "  Does  this  mean  to  say,  that  the  man  had  not  time 
before  Sabbath  {i.e.,  that  he  made  the  vow  on  the  Sabbath),  or 
even  if  he  had  time  before  Sabbath,  but  wishes  to  be  released 
from  his  vow  at  once  ?"  Come  and  hear:  The  rabbis  complied 
with  the  wish  of  R.  Zutra  the  son  of  R.  Zera,  and  released  him 
from  his  vow  on  a  Sabbath,  although  he  had  plenty  of  time  to 
have  this  done  before  Sabbath.* 

R.  Jose  wished  to  state,  that,  as  to  vows,  a  man  may  consult 
on  Sabbath  only  a  man  who  is  a  competent  authority  (Cha- 
cham),  but  he  must  not  consult  three  ordinary  men,  because 
that  would  appear  as  a  judgment  on  business  affairs.  Abayi  said 
to  him:  "Whereas  three  men  may  be  consulted  standing,  or 
even  if  they  are  of  kin,  or  even  at  night,  it  will  not  appear  as 
an  ordinary  judgment." 

When  a  man  wishes  to  annul  the  vow  of  his  wife  on  the  Sab- 
bath, he  must  not  say  to  her,  as  on  a  week-day:  '*^Thy  vow  is 
annulled,"  or,  "I  release  thee  from  thy  vow";  but  merely: 
"  Go  and  eat,"  or,  "  Go  and  drink,"  and  this  releases  her  from 
her  vow.  Said  R.  Johanan  :  "The  man  must,  however,  think 
at  the  time  that  he  is  annulling  her  vow." 

We  have  learned  in  a  Boraitha:  The  school  of  Shamai  said: 

^  ■ 

*  All  this  is  originally  part  of  Tract  Nedarim.  We  have  in  consequence  omitted 
it,  but  a  part  of  that  passage  being  ncccssitry  for  the  elucidation  of  the  above  text, 
we  have  incorporated  it  in  the  Tract  Sabbath. 


378  THE   BABYLONIAN   TALMUD. 

"  On  Sabbath  a  man  must  annul  the  vow  in  his  mind  only,  but 
on  a  week-day  he  must  proclaim  it  by  word  of  mouth."  The 
school  of  Hillel  said,  however,  that  be  it  Sabbath  or  a  week-day, 
it  is  sufficient  if  the  man  annul  the  vow  in  his  mind  without 
proclaiming  it. 

"  They  closed  a  window  with  an  earthen  jar^''  etc.  Said  R. 
Jehudah  in  the  name  of  Rabh:  "  There  was  a  small  bridge  be- 
tween two  houses,  and  underneath  the  bridge  lay  a  part  of  a 
corpse,  and  a  cracked  tub  stood  on  top  of  the  two  houses ;  but 
it  was  not  known  whether  the  crack  in  the  tub  was  large  enough 
to  admit  of  the  penetration  of  the  uncleanness  arising  from  the 
corpse.  So,  first  of  all,  all  holes  which  were  in  the  walls  of  the 
two  houses  were  stopped  up  with  towels;  then  another  vessel  (a 
small  jar)  was  tied  with  papyrus  to  a  pole  and  laid  on  the  tub,  in 
order  to  see  whether  the  crack  was  one  span  deep  or  not."  * 

' '  From  them  we  learn  that  {in  certain  cases)  one  may  close, 
measure,"  etc.  Ula  once  came  into  the  house  of  the  Exilarch 
on  Sabbath,  and  saw  Rabba  bar  R.  Huna  sitting  in  a  tub  of 
water  and  measuring  it.  Said  Ula  to  him:  "  The  rabbis  only 
permitted  the  measuring  of  a  plunge-bath  for  ritual  purposes ; 
but  did  they  permit  it  to  be  done  for  no  purpose  ? "  Rabba  bar 
R.  Huna  answered :  "  I  am  doing  this  merely  to  while  away  the 
time  (I  have  nothing  else  to  do,  and  must  not  think  of  the  Law 
while  bathing,  so  it  makes  no  difference)." 

*  This  explanation  is  taken  from  Rashi.  The  other  commentary  by  Tosphath 
differs  with  Rashi,  but  the  explanation  is  even  more  complicated  than  the  above. 
Hence  we  have  chosen  the  former. 


END  OF  TRACT  SABBATH. 


THE  PRAYER  AT  THE  CONCLUSION  OF  A  TRACT. 

Abayi  said :  "  ATay  it  be  reckoned  to  me  {/or  my  reward  in  the 
world  to  come)^  that  whenever  I  noticed  a  young  scholar  {of  my 
college)  had  finished  a  tract  of  the  Talmud,  I  gave  a  feast  to  all 
the  sages  of  the  day.''     (Pages  250  and  251  of  this  tract.) 

[Bearing  the  above  motto  in  mind  and  as  a  matter  of  peculiar  interest,  we 
shall  translate  below  the  laudatory  prayer  published  in  every  edition  of  the 
ancient  Talmud  at  the  conclusion  of  each  tract,  and  in  justification  of  this 
our  digression  from  the  actual  text  would  state  the  following  : 

With  all  pious  Israelites  who  were  exclusively  engaged  in  the  study  of  the 
Talmud,  and  even  with  those  who  made  it  an  incidental  feature  of  their 
lives,  it  has  since  time  immemorial  been  the  custom  to  celebrate  as  a  happy 
event  the  completion  of  the  study  of  each  tract.  So  marked  was  the  degree 
of  gratification  at  this  frequent  occurrence,  that  it  became  customary  for  the 
first-born  sons  in  Israel,  who  in  commemoration  of  one  of  the  plagues  sent 
by  the  Lord  upon  the  Egyptians  were  in  the  habit  of  fasting  on  the  eve  of 
Passover,  to  complete  the  study  of  a  tract  of  the  Talmud  on  that  day,  and, 
thanks  to  the  feast  given  in  honor  of  the  occasion,  escape  the  rather  onerous 
duty  of  fasting  ;  and  even  in  the  nine  days  of  penance  occurring  before  the 
Fast  of  the  Ninth  of  Abh,  when  the  Temple  was  destroyed,  when  meat  was 
not  to  be  eaten  and  wine  was  not  to  be  drunk,  the  same  subterfuge  would 
be  resorted  to,  in  order  that  a  feast  might  be  given  and  thus  break  the  fast 
of  the  nine  days.  Apart  from  this,  the  prayer  is  rich  in  sentiment,  and 
deserves  to  be  rendered  at  the  end  of  this  volume  once  for  all.] 

We  shall  return  to  thee,  Tract  Sabbath,*  and  mayest  thou 
return  to  us!  We  shall  bear  thee  in  mind,  Tract  Sabbath,  and 
mayest  thou  bear  us  in  mind !  May  we  not  be  forgotten  by 
thee,  Tract  Sabbath !  and  thou  shalt  not  be  forgotten  by  us  on 
this  earth  nor  in  the  world  to  come ! 

[This  is  to  be  repeated  three  times,  when  the  following  is  to 
be  recited :] 

May  it  be  Thy  will,  O  Lord,  our  God  and  God  of  our  fathers, 
that  Thy  Law  may  be  our  pursuit  in  this  world  and  in  the  world 
to  come!  May  there  be  together  with  us,  in  the  world  to  come, 
Haninah  bar  Papa,  Rami  bar  Papa,  Na'hman  bar  Papa,  Ahayi  bar 
Papa,  Abba  Mari  bar  Papa,  Raphram  bar  Papa,  Rakhcsh  bar 
Papa,  Sur'hab  bar  Papa,  Ada  bar  Papa,  and  Doro  bar  Papa.f 

•  At  the  conclusion  of  another  tract,  name  it  instead  of  Tract  Sahbath. 

\  At  the  close  of  a  learned  work,  entitled  "  Answers  and  Questions,"  by  Rabbi 
Moses  Iserles,  and  also  in  the  work  entitled  "  Sea  of  Solomon,"  by  Solomon  Lurie, 
Tract  Haba  I^amah,  may  be  found  the  reasons  why  the  abore  ten  names  must  be 
mentioned  in  the  prayer. 

379 


38o     PRAYER  AT    THE    CONCLUSION    OF    A    TRACT. 

Make  sweet,  O  Lord,  our  God,  the  words  of  Thy  Law  in  our 
mouths,  and  in  the  mouth  of  Thy  people  the  house  of  Israel; 
and  may  we,  our  children,  and  the  children  of  Thy  people  the 
house  of  Israel,  all  know  Thy  Name  and  learn  Thy  Law. 

Wiser  than  my  enemy  doth  Thy  commandment  make  me; 
for  it  is  perpetually  with  me.  Let  my  heart  be  entire  in  the 
statutes,  that  I  may  not  be  put  to  shame.  Never  will  I  forget 
Thy  precepts;  for  with  them  Thou  hast  kept  me  alive.  Blessed 
art  Thou,  O  Lord!  teach  me  Thy  statutes.  Amen,  Amen, 
Amen.     Selah,  Vaed  (Forever)  ! 

We  thank  Thee,  O  Lord,  our  God  and  God  of  our  fathers, 
that  thou  hast  cast  our  lot  amongst  those  that  dwell  in  the 
houses  of  learning,  and  not  amongst  the  occupants  of  the 
markets.  For  we  arise  early,  and  they  arise  early.  We  arise 
to  the  words  of  Law,  and  they  arise  to  words  of  vanity.  We 
strive,  and  they  strive.  We  strive  and  receive  our  reward,  while 
they  strive  in  vain.  We  run,  and  they  run.  We  run  towards 
everlasting  life,  and  they  run  towards  death,  as  it  is  written : 
"  But  Thou,  O  God!  Thou  wilt  bring  them  down  into  the  pit 
of  destruction ;  let  not  the  men  of  blood  and  deceit  live  out  half 
their  days;  but  I  will  indeed  trust  in  Thee!  " 

May  it  be  Thy  will,  O  Lord  my  God,  that  as  Thou  hast  as- 
sisted me  in  the  conclusion  of  Tract  Sabbath,  so  mayest  Thou 
assist  me  in  the  commencement  of  other  tracts  and  books  of 
Law,  and  in  their  conclusion :  that  I  may  live  to  learn  and 
teach,  to  observe  and  to  do  and  to  keep  all  the  words  of  the 
teachings  of  Thy  Law  with  affection.  And  may  the  merits  of 
all  the  Tanaim  and  Amoraim  and  other  scholars  uphold  me  and 
my  children,  in  order  that  the  Law  may  not  escape  from  my 
mouth,  from  the  mouths  of  my  children  and  children's  children 
forever,  and  may  it  be  verified  in  me  (all  that  is  written)  :  "  When 
thou  walkest,  it  shall  lead  thee;  when  thou  liest  down,  it  shall 
watch  over  thee;  and  when  thou  art  awake,  it  shall  converse  with 
thee.  For  through  me  shall  thy  days  be  multiplied  and  the 
years  of  thy  life  shall  be  increased  unto  thee.  Length  of  days 
are  in  her  right  liand,  in  her  left  are  riches  and  honor.  The  Lord 
shall  give  strength  unto  His  people;  the  Lord  will  bless  His 
people  with  peace." 


[Revised  July  22,  1896,  and  found  all  correct. — Isaac  M.  Wise.] 


APPENDIX. 

Page  24  of  Volume  I.  of  this  tract  contains  a  Mishna  com- 
mencing with  the  statement:  "  And  these  are  some  of  the  regu- 
lations enacted  in  the  attic  of  Hananiah  ben  Hizkyah  ben 
Garon,"  and  concluding,  "  they  enforced  eighteen  regulations  on 
that  day."  At  the  same  time,  the  Mishna  fails  to  enumerate  in 
the  place  mentioned,  or  elsewhere,  these  eighteen  regulations. 
The  Gemara,  however,  conjectures  upon  their  character  and 
cites  them  in  a  scattered  and  incoherent  manner.  As  a  matter 
of  course,  this  is  not  done  without  the  adduction  of  numerous 
and  varied  opinions;  but  the  conclusion  is,  that  the  eighteen  reg- 
ulations are  those  which  we  shall  enumerate  farther  on. 

In  another  section  of  the  Gemara  it  is  related,  that  three 
hundred  jars  of  wine  and  a  like  number  of  jars  of  oil  were  taken 
up  into  that  attic  in  order  to  afford  the  sages  no  opportunity  to 
leave  their  places  until  their  deliberations  concerning  the  regula- 
tions were  finally  concluded. 

Among  these  regulations  there  are,  however,  only  two  or 
three  concerning  Sabbath,  the  rest  being  dispersed  throughout 
the  Talmud  in  their  proper  departments  and  merely  mentioned 
as  regulations  enacted  during  that  session,  but  they  are  not  enu- 
merated in  regular  order  either  of  sequence  or  time  of  enact- 
ment. Hence  we,  in  consistency  with  our  method  of  transla- 
tion— viz.,  to  place  everything  in  its  proper  department — have 
omitted  in  this  tract  the  enumeration  of  these  regulations,  to- 
gether with  the  diverse  opinions  concerning  the  reasons  for  their 
institution,  which  reasons  as  cited  by  the  Gemara  arc  very  ab- 
struse and  for  the  most  part  untenable. 

In  the  last  chapter  of  this  tract,  however,  mention  is  again 
made  of  the  eighteen  regulations,  and  it  is  declared,  that  their 
measure  was  made  "  heaping  full,"  while  elsewhere  in  the  Ge- 
mara the  assertion  is  made,  that  the  day  on  which  they  were 
enacted  was  as  grave  in  its  consequences  for  Israel  as  the  day  on 
which  the  golden  calf  was  made.  It  is  these  two  statements 
that  have  impelled  us  at  the  last  moment  to  embody  these  eigh- 
voL.  II. — 13  381 


382  APPENDIX. 

teen  regulations  in  an  appendix  at  the  end  of  this  volume,  and 
state  as  best  we  can,  after  careful  study  and  consideration  of  the 
subject,  the  most  potent  reasons  for  their  enactment. 

With  this  purpose  in  view,  we  shall  divide  the  eighteen  regu- 
lations into  five  classes,  as  follows:  Those  pertaining  to  Theru- 
mah  (heavc-oflferings),  Tumah  (uncleanness),  Chithon  (mingling 
with  other  nations),  Mikvah  (legal  bath),  and  Sabbath. 

Therumah  is  rendered  useless  when  brought  into  contact 
with  any  one  of  the  following  ten  subjects:  First:  With  a  man 
who  eats  a  thing  that  had  been  contaminated  by  a  parent  of 
uncleanness  *  and  had  thus  become  unclean  in  the  first  degree. 
Second :  With  a  man  who  had  eaten  a  thing  unclean  in  the  sec- 
ond degree  {i.(.,  had  been  touched  by  a  thing  unclean  in  the 
first  degree).  Third :  With  a  man  who  had  drunk  unclean  bev- 
erages. Fourth :  With  a  man  who  had  bathed  his  head  and  the 
larger  portion  of  his  body  in  water  that  had  been  pumped  up 
(drawn  or  scooped),  and  not  in  a  legal  bath.  Fifth :  With  a 
clean  person  {i.e.,  one  who  had  already  taken  a  legal  bath,  but 
was  subsequently  drenched  with  three  lugs  of  drawn  water). 
Sixth:  With  the  sacred  scrolls  of  the  Holy  Writ,  either  in  part 
or  in  its  entire  form.f  Seventh:  With  hands  of  which  one  was 
not  quite  certain  that  they  had  been  kept  clean  the  whole  day. 
Eighth:  With  one  who  had  taken  a  legal  bath,  if  the  Therumah 
was  touched  before  sunset.  Ninth :  With  eatables  and  utensils 
which  had  become  unclean  through  beverages  (as  will  be  ex- 
plained in  Tract  Yodaim).  When  brought  in  contact  with  any 
one  of  these  nine  subjects,  Therumah  is  rendered  useless. 
Tenth :  The  crop  raised  from  Therumah  (seed)  is  of  the  same 
character  as  the  seed ;  if  the  latter  was  clean  when  planted  the 
crop  is  clean,  but  if  the  seed  was  unclean  the  crop  is  the  same. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  still  considered  Therumah,  and  subject  to  the 

*  By  a  "  parent  of  uncleanness"  is  meant  any  object  that  had  come  in  direct  con- 
tact with  a  corpse.     See  explanation  in  Tract  Shekalim. 

f  Why  contact  with  the  Holy  Writ  should  render  Therumah  unclean  can  in  our 
opinion  be  explained  only  as  follows  :  When  the  priests  came  to  demand  their  share 
of  the  Therun\ah,  it  is  highly  probable  that  they  did  this  with  a  correspondingly 
impressive  ceremony  and  read  the  part  of  the  Law  referring  to  the  Therumah  before 
the  donors.  If  such  was  really  the  case,  they  no  doubt  carried  the  scrolls  with  them 
wherever  they  went,  and  in  consequence  the  regulation  was  enacted  which  rendered 
the  Therumah  unclean  when  brought  into  contact  with  the  scrolls  or  book  contain- 
ing the  Holy  Writ.  Our  basis  for  this  assertion  is  the  ordinance  to  be  found  in  Tract 
Yodaim,  which  proclaims  that  the  scrolls  or  books  containing  the  Holy  Writ  render 
hands  unclean  when  coming  in  contact  with  them,  and  doubtless  the  hands  of  the 
priests,  which  were  afterwards  to  handle  Therumah,  are  meant. 


APPENDIX.  383 

laws  of  Thcrumah.  Thus  we  have  ten  regulations  concerning 
Therumah. 

Concerning  uncleanness,  there  were  four  regulations  enacted: 
First :  All  movable  things  bring  uncleanness  on  a  man  by  means 
of  a  tent,  not  larger  even  than  a  span,  covering  a  corpse,  even  if 
the  space  between  the  corpse  and  the  tent  was  but  an  awl's  width. 
(For  explanation,  see  Tract  Ahaloth.)  Second:  The  daughters 
of  the  Samaritans  are  considered  unclean  (as  women  suffering 
from  their  menstruation)  from  the  day  of  their  birth.  Third:  A 
child  of  a  heathen  is  considered  unclean,  because  it  is  considered 
as  one  afflicted  with  venereal  disease.  Fourth :  One  who  presses 
grapes  or  olives  renders  the  vessels  used  to  receive  the  must  or 
the  oil  susceptible  to  uncleanness.  (This  is  explained  in  detail 
in  Tract  Kelim.) 

Concerning  Chithon,  but  one  regulation  was  enacted,  cover- 
ing four  subjects:  It  was  prohibited  to  partake  of  the  bread,  oil, 
or  wine  of  other  nations  in  order  to  prevent  intermarriage  with 
their  daughters. 

Concerning  Mikvah,  one  regulation  only  was  enacted ;  viz.  : 
If  the  water  running  out  of  a  rain-gutter  flow  directly  into  a 
Mikvah,  the  Mikvah  is  not  invalidated;  but  if  the  water  was 
intercepted  by  a  vessel  from  which  it  flowed  into  the  Mikvah, 
the  latter  becomes  invalid ;  or  even  if  three  lugs  of  drawn  water 
were  poured  into  the  Mikvah,  they  render  it  useless  (see  Tract 
Mikvaoth). 

Concerning  Sabbath,  two  regulations  were  enacted:  First: 
One  shall  not  search  for  vermin  or  read  before  lamplight  (on 
Friday  night).*  Second:  One  who  was  overtaken  by  dusk  on 
the  Sabbath  eve  while  on  the  road  must  give  his  purse  to  a 
Gentile. 

The  learned  reader  who  is  not  familiar  with  the  intricate 
teachings  of  the  Talmud,  and  even  the  student  of  the  Talmud 
who  has  delved  in  its  labyrinths  of  lore  for  the  sake  of  probing 
into  the  ordinances  and  discussions  contained  in  its  volumes,  will 
be  quite  amazed  at  the  seeming  unimportance  and  triviality  of 
the  above  regulations,  unless  thoroughly  comprehensive  of  the 
spirit  of  the  Talmud  and  the  object  of  the  sages  in  their  day. 

At  the  time  when  these  regulations  were  enacted  and  enforced, 

*  There  are  differences  of  opinion  in  the  Gemara  as  to  the  division  of  the  rejju- 

lations.  Some  hold  that  they  should  be  grouped,  while  others  would  count  them 
separately.  The  matter  is  of  no  importance,  however,  and  hence  we  have  grouped 
them  in  conformity  with  the  number  st.itcd  by  the  Mishna. 


384  APPENDIX. 

there  appeared  no  reasonable  grounds  for  their  enactment ;  and 
even  the  reasons  advanced  by  the  Gemara  itself  in  a  faltering, 
groping  manner  are  in  many  instances  quite  absurd.  Entirely 
contrary'  to  their  usual  custom,  the  sages  themselves  did  not  base 
these  regulations  upon  any  inference,  analogy,  passage,  or  ordi- 
nance contained  in  the  Holy  Writ,  a  very  remarkable  occurrence 
indeed.  Furthermore,  at  a  casual  glance,  the  student  will  not 
find  in  any  one  of  the  regulations  a  motive  based  even  on  com- 
mon sense. 

Strange  to  say,  it  has  also  occurred  that  our  excellent  He- 
brew poet  L.  Gordon,  in  a  poem  pungent  with  deepest  sarcasm 
and  pointed  ridicule,  commented  upon  these  eighteen  regulations, 
saying,  amongst  other  things:  "  Not  for  political  purposes,  not 
for  the  improvement  of  the  government  moral  or  material,  did 
our  sages  seclude  themselves  in  their  attic,  but  merely  to  pro- 
hibit matters  as  trivial  and  absurd  as  that  of  reading  by  lamp- 
light on  the  eve  of  Sabbath,"  etc. 

Had  the  poet,  however,  devoted  deeper  study  and  closer 
research  to  the  environments,  influences,  and  conditions  prevail- 
ing in  the  days  of  these  sages,  he  would  readily  have  discovered 
that  the  greatest  political  import,  the  gravest  questions  of  gov- 
ernment both  moral  and  material,  actuated  the  institution  of 
these  apparently  ridiculous  regulations,  all  culminating  and 
leaning  towards  the  accomplishment  of  one  great  object;  viz., 
that  of  keeping  the  small  nation  of  Jews  intact  and  guarding  it 
from  the  dangers  menacing  it  not  only  from  the  exterior  world 
but  from  its  interior  vampires  and  oppressors. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that  when  the  deliberations 
anent  these  regulations  were  about  to  be  commenced,  the  hall 
used  for  the  session  was  closely  guarded  by  men  armed  with 
keen-edged  swords,  under  instructions  to  permit  all  who  desired 
to  enter  to  do  so,  but  to  instantly  thrust  their  swords  through 
any  one  endeavoring  to  retreat ;  and  what  was  the  discussion 
commenced  with  ?  Merely  an  argument  determining  the  un- 
clcanness  of  certain  vessels,  which  the  priests  could  not  approach 
(as  will  be  seen  farther  on).  Still,  Hillel  the  Prince,  the  mighty 
sage,  sat  before  his  old-time  opponent  Shamai,  and  listened  to 
him  with  the  most  profound  attention  and  reverence,  just  as  if 
he  were  the  least  among  his  disciples. 

This  historical  fact  was  but  another  item  in  inducing  us  to 
digress  from  our  established  method  and  insert  the  eighteen  reg- 
ulations, together  with  the  explanation  of  their  importance;  for 


APPENDIX.  385 

had  we  not  done  so,  it  is  highly  probable  that  we  would  have 
called  down  the  criticism  of  many  scholars  who  could  not  over- 
look such  an  omission. 

At  no  period  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish  race  do  we  find  so 
much  deliberation,  profundity  of  thought,  and  depth  of  calcula- 
tion in  evidence  as  at  the  time  when  the  sages  secluded  them- 
selves in  the  attic  of  Hananiah  ben  Hizkyah.  There  it  was,  that 
means  were  devised  to  keep  the  nation  of  the  Jews — whose 
friends  were  always  in  the  minority,  and  whose  enemies,  not  only 
abroad  but  in  their  very  midst,  were  as  the  sands  of  the  sea — 
intact  and  proof  against  annihilation. 

All  of  the  literature  current  among  the  masses  was  carefully 
scanned  and  revised.  The  ethical  code  was  reinforced,  and 
wherever  necessary  purged  of  objectionable  matter.  This  cen- 
sorship was  carried  to  such  an  extent  that  it  was  attempted  to 
reject  even  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Ezekiel  as  undesirable; 
and  it  was  only  with  great  difficulty  that  those  in  authority 
were  prevailed  upon  to  let  them  remain.  The  records  of  ances- 
try, however,  tracing  the  descent  of  every  existing  family,  which 
were  the  pride  of  the  people,  as  well  as  all  works  treating  of 
medical  science  and  the  art  of  healing,  were  buried  and  hidden 
beyond  recover)'.  Even  the  Apocr}'pha  were  eliminated  from 
the  Holy  Writ  and  declared  ordinary  literature,  and  many  other 
writings  unknown  to  us  even  in  this  day,  as  well  as  all  secret 
scripts,  were  thoroughly  revised  and  made  adaptable  to  the  ex- 
isting times  and  circumstances.  All  this,  and  more,  was  done 
with  the  sole  purpose  of  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  Jewish 
race  and  preventing  its  absorption  by  other  nations. 

Thus  it  was  commenced  to  accustom  the  Jew  to  study  and 
thought,  and  as  an  outcome  of  this  period  of  virtual  renaissance 
the  eighteen  regulations  were  enacted  with  two  prime  objects  in 
view,  as  follows : 

Firstly,  to  diminish  as  far  as  possible  the  constantly  growing 
domination  of  the  priests;  for  the  high-priestdom,  with  which 
the  supreme  governing  power  was  identical,  could  be  purchased 
with  money,  and  more  especially  because  the  number  of  priests 
in  the  last  centurj'  prior  to  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  had 
grown  to  such  a  vast  proportion  that  those  in  actual  ser\'ice 
alone  numbered  little  short  of  twenty  thousand.  Apart  from 
these  were  those  who  did  not  perform  actual  service,  while  enjoy- 
mg  all  the  immunities  and  privileges  of  their  rank  as  priests,  and 
they  were:  Priests  who  had  the  least  blemish  on  their  bodies; 


386  APPENDIX. 

those  whose  descent  or  even  whose  wives*  descent  left  the  least 
room  for  doubt ;  and  the  wealthy  and  influential  priests  who 
would  not  perform  the  menial  duties  of  priests,  but  left  them  to 
the  less  fortunate  and  more  insignificant  of  their  number.  (See 
"  Die  Priestcr  und  der  Cultus,"  by  Dr.  Adolf  Biichler,  Vienna, 
1895.) 

Of  such  men  was  the  party  in  power  composed,  and  they 
made  but  too  free  a  ase  of  their  authority.  As  a  matter  of 
course,  restrictions  had  to  be  provided  wherewith  to  relieve  the 
oppressed. 

Secondly,  the  object  was  to  prevent  the  amalgamation  of  the 
Jews  with  the  other  nations  with  whom  they  were  in  daily  and 
constant  association. 

Now  for  the  manner  in  which  the  first  object  was  about  to  be 
accomplished. 

Quite  some  time  previous  to  the  time  of  which  we  are  treat- 
ing, the  laymen  had,  after  a  hard  struggle,  succeeded  in  divest- 
ing the  priests  of  their  spiritual  power  {i.e.y  the  right  to  decide 
all  questions  pertaining  to  religious  and  ritual  matters,  whether 
a  thing  was  allowed  or  forbidden,  clean  or  unclean,  etc.),  by 
proving  that  the  priests  were  far  too  ignorant  to  be  competent 
judges.*  This  struggle  had  been  going  on  since  the  days  of 
Nehemiah,  for  prior  to  his  day  the  priests  were  the  sole  judges 
both  in  spiritual  and  in  temporal  affairs,  claiming  their  privilege 
in  accordance  with  the  passage  [Deut.  xxi.  5]:  "And  after 
their  (the  priests')  decision  shall  be  done  at  every  controversy 
and  every  injury."  Having  wrested  the  spiritual  power  from 
the  priests,  the  supervision  of  all  religious  and  ritual  matters 
was  conferred  upon  the  Pharisees,  who  henceforth  were  the  rec- 
ognized authorities  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Law.  This  ac- 
complished, the  next  step  decided  upon  was  to  limit  as  much  as 
possible  the  temporal  power  of  the  priests :  it  was  decided  not 
to  do  this  in  too  precipitate  a  manner,  but  cautiously  and  unos- 
tentatiously, using  as  a  medium  regulations  seemingly  unimpor- 
tant, but  the  hidden  motives  of  which  were  far-reaching  in  their 
consequences. 

The  time  of  Hananiah  ben  Hizkyah  was  the  more  opportune 
for  such  a  coup  d'etat,  as  by  that  time  the  Pharisees  had  obtained 
the  upper  hand  of  all  other  existing  sects,  notably  the  Saddu- 
cees. 

*  See  Ilaggai  ii.  13  and  14. 


APPENDIX.  387 

Now,  inasmuch  as  it  proved  to  be  an  easy  matter  to  enact 
laws  by  means  of  which  the  Jews  would  be  prevented  from 
amalgamating  with  other  nations,  such  as  the  prohibition  of  par- 
taking the  bread,  oil,  etc.,  of  Gentiles,  the  proclamation  declar- 
ing the  children  of  heathens  unclean  (to  preyent  the  children  of 
Jews  from  joining  them  at  play  and  thus  forming  attachments), 
and  the  women  of  the  Samaritans,  the  deadliest  enemies  of  the 
Jews,  unclean  (in  order  to  prevent  their  employment  as  servants 
by  Jews),  it  was  but  little  more  difficult  to  devise  laws  which 
would  forever  break  the  oppressive  domination  of  the  priests 
in  a  mild  but  nevertheless  effective  manner. 

The  first  step  necessary  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  desir- 
able end  was  to  completely  destroy  the  system  of  espionage 
practised  by  the  priests,  and  which  was  carried  on  to  such  an 
extent  that  spies  were  constantly  prying  into  actions  and  even 
utterances  in  the  houses  of  the  laymen.  This  was,  however,  by 
no  means  an  easy  task,  from  the  very  fact  that  the  priests  were 
virtual  shareholders  in  all  the  possessions  of  the  laymen.  One 
fiftieth  of  all  grain  raised  by  the  peasants  was  their  share  as 
Therumah;  one  tenth  of  such  grain  comprised  the  tithe,  and 
one  tenth  of  the  tithe  belonged  to  the  priests  individually;  the 
first  of  the  dough,  the  first  of  shorn  wool,  the  parts  of  slaugh- 
tered cattle,  the  firstlings  of  cattle,  the  firstfruits  of  trees  and 
produce,  all  belonged  to  the  priests;  and  it  was  but  natural 
that  they  were  to  be  found  in  the  houses  of  the  laymen  at  all 
times,  whither  they  would  come  not  to  humbly  ask  for  their 
donations,  but  to  demand  it  as  the  rightful  possessors  and  share- 
holders. Nor  were  they  at  all  backward  about  taking  a  hand  in 
the  management  of  all  other  affairs  of  the  layman,  under  the 
plea  of  guarding  their  own  interests;  and  thus  at  times  willingly, 
sometimes  unwillingly,  they  were  the  spies  of  the  higher  author- 
ities of  the  government. 

The  question  then  arose  how  to  find  a  place  where  the  delib- 
erations for  the  suppression  of  this  constantly  growing  evil  could 
be  held  without  the  presence  of  the  spying  priests;  and  to  meet 
the  exigencies  of  the  case,  an  old  decree  that  had  been  promul- 
gated in  the  early  days  of  the  existence  of  the  Temple  was  again 
called  into  being  and  made  effective.  The  decree  was  the  one 
enacted  in  the  time  of  Jose  ben  Joczer  Ish  Izreda  and  Jose  ben 
Johanan  the  Jerusalemite,  and  read:  "  All  the  lands  outside  of 
Judxa  are  unclean  "  {i.e.,  all  eatables  and  beverages  containing 
any  degree  of  sanctity  whatever  are  rendered  unclean  by  coming 


388  APPENDIX. 

in  contact  with  the  soil  of  those  lands  outside  of  Judaea,  but 
aside  from  such  eatables  and  beverages  nothing  was  rendered 
unclean).  Now,  the  only  eatables  and  beverages  containing  any 
sanctity  whatever,  which  could  be  found  outside  of  Jerusalem, 
where  the  sacrifices,  and  other  sanctified  articles  were  brought, 
were  the  gifts  and  the  Therumah  set  aside  for  the  priests.  Thus 
we  see  that  the  declaration  of  uncleanness,  ostensibly  directed 
against  all  eatables  containing  any  degree  of  sanctity,  was  in 
reality  directed  against  the  Therumah  of  the  priests,  while  the 
priests  themselves  were  flattered  by  the  elevation  of  the  Theru- 
mah to  the  degree  of  highest  sanctity,  and  its  object  will  be 
apparent  from  the  following  argument: 

The  Therumah  is  invested  with  sanctity  only  when  it  is  sep- 
arated from  the  bulk,  but  while  still  a  part  of  the  entire  crop  it 
is  regarded  as  ordinary  grain.  If  the  Therumah  were  separated 
from  the  bulk  in  any  land  outside  of  Judaea,  the  moment  it 
comes  in  contact  with  the  soil  it  becomes  unclean  and  unfit  for 
use.  This  fact  made  it  necessary  to  separate  the  Therumah  in 
Judaea.  The  transportation  of  the  entire  crop  to  Judaea  for  such 
a  purpose  involving  too  much  labor  and  expense,  part  of  the 
crop  was  set  aside  in  the  field,  and  from  that  part  a  sufificient 
quantity  was  separated  and  sent  to  the  holy  land.  There  the 
quantity  of  the  Therumah  (which  according  to  biblical  ordinance 
could  have  been  only  one  grain,  but  according  to  established 
custom  amounted  to  one  fiftieth  of  the  entire  crop)  was  sepa- 
rated from  the  quantity  sent.  The  consequence  of  this  mode  of 
procedure  was,  that  the  presence  of  the  priest  at  the  place  where 
the  crop  was  harvested  was  no  longer  required,  as  he  could  not 
demand  his  share  outside  of  Judaea.  Thus  it  was  rendered  pos- 
sible to  hold  a  convocation  where  the  presence  of  the  priest  was 
no  longer  to  be  dreaded.*  It  seems  that  up  to  the  time  of 
Hananiah  ben  Hizkyah  this  decree  had  been  evidently  disre- 
garded or  not  sufficiently  effective,!  for  we  see  that  eighty  years 

*  At  the  same  time  that  the  decree  declaring  all  lands  outside  of  Judaea  unclean 
was  promulgated,  glassware  was  also  declared  unclean,  while  prior  to  that  time  glass- 
ware had  not  even  been  susceptible  to  uncleanness.  We  cannot  state  positively 
whether  this  was  done  in  order  to  render  the  first  decree  less  conspicuous  or  to  pre- 
vent the  priests  from  being  present  at  the  places  where  glassware  was  manufactured, 
which  were  all  outside  of  Judaea.  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  can  safely  be  assumed  that 
the  measure  was  another  political  ruse. 

t  It  was  not  sufficiently  effective  because,  in  order  to  circumvene  the  decree,  the 
priests  brought  chests  to  the  lands  outside  of  Judoea  in  which  to  store  the  bulk  of  the 
grain  before  separating  the  Therumah,  and  thus  prevent  the  contact  of  the  latter  with 
the  soil.     This  we  presume  from  a  hint  of  Rashi  to  that  eflfect. 


APPENDIX.  389 

prior  to  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  it  was  again  promulgated, 
and  this  time  reenforced  with  the  declaration  that  even  the  at- 
mosphere of  all  lands  outside  of  Judaea  was  unclean  and  all  arti- 
cles containing  any  degree  of  sanctity  were  rendered  unclean  by 
contact  with  such  atmosphere. 

The  eighty  years  before  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  corre- 
spond with  the  time  of  Hananiah  ben  Hizkyah,  and  it  is  quite 
possible  that  the  sages  called  by  the  Talmud  "  the  sages  of  the 
eighty  years  "  were  the  same  that  took  part  in  the  deliberations 
in  the  attic,  and  that,  in  order  to  secure  at  least  one  place  where 
they  could  hold  a  convocation  undisturbed  by  the  priests,  they 
declared  even  the  atmosphere  of  the  lands  outside  of  Judaea 
unclean. 

The  Talmud  relates,  also,  that  in  the  city  of  Usha  the  decree 
was  reinforced  for  the  third  time  with  the  declaration  that  all 
articles  rendered  unclean  by  the  atmosphere  of  such  lands  were 
not  only  to  be  rendered  useless,  but  were  to  be  immediately 
burned,  as  a  precaution  lest  a  priest  might  accidentally  make  use 
of  them. 

Still,  the  decree  was  not  as  effective  as  it  should  have  been,  as 
long  as  the  priest  could  come  and  announce  that  he  would  use 
his  share  of  the  Therumah  for  seed  or  dispose  of  it  as  seed,  and 
to  meet  this  exigency  the  sages  of  the  attic  first  of  all  decreed 
that  the  crops  raised  from  clean  or  unclean  Therumah,  used  as 
seed,  were  clean  or  unclean  respectively. 

Again,  means  had  to  be  devised  to  rid  the  laymen  residing 
in  Judaea  proper  from  the  obnoxious  presence  of  the  priests  at 
all  times;  for  at  harvest-time,  or  when  the  grain  was  brought 
from  the  lands  outside  of  Judaea,  the  ever-watchful  priest  was 
on  hand.  To  this  end  the  subsequent  regulations  concerning 
Therumah  were  enacted  and  gradually  reenforced.  Thus  at  first 
a  man  who  had  eaten  a  thing  unclean  in  the  first  degree  rendered 
Therumah  useless;  then  a  man  who  had  eaten  a  thing  of  the 
second  degree  of  uncleanness,  until  finally  even  a  sacred  scroll, 
or  even  a  hand  that  had  come  in  contact  with  a  sacred  scroll, 
and  last  of  all  a  hand  that  was  not  known  to  be  positively  clean, 
rendered  Therumah  useless.  All  this  was  done  with  the  sole 
object  of  keeping  the  priests  out  of  the  houses  of  the  laymen, 
and  rather  bring  the  Therumah  to  them  than  have  them  come 
to  demand  it.  Should  they  come  in  spite  of  this,  it  was  not 
difficult  to  find  a  pretext  for  calling  the  Therumah  unclean.  In 
order,  however,  not  to  make  the  purpose  of  these  regulations 


390  APPENDIX. 

too  apparent,  and  thus  give  offence  to  the  priests,  other  regula- 
tions were  enacted  in  conjunction  with  these,  which,  while  of  no 
value  whatever  in  themselves,  acted  as  screens  for  the  actual 
intentions. 

It  is  now  not  difficult  to  explain  the  historical  sensation  caused 
by  the  deference  shown  by  Hillel  to  Shamai  at  the  commence- 
ment of  these  deliberations,  and  the  reasons  which  prompted  the 
posting  of  an  armed  guard  at  the  entrance  of  the  hall.  Hillel, 
in  his  capacity  as  a  prince  of  Israel,  was  somewhat  too  timid  to 
proceed  against  the  priests  in  too  harsh  a  manner;  but  the  masses 
were  so  much  incensed  against  their  oppressors,  and  so  deeply 
conscious  of  their  grievances,  that  he  could  not  stem  the  popular 
tide  against  them.  In  this  emergency  it  was  Shamai,  under  ordi- 
nary circumstances  of  lesser  consequence  than  Hillel,  that  proved 
to  be  the  champion  of  the  popular  cause;  and  in  order  to  insure 
for  him  a  telling  majority  when  the  question  came  up  for  a  final 
vote,  the  doors  of  the  hall  were  guarded  so  that  none  could  leave, 
while  all  were  allowed  to  enter.  Seeing  the  patriotism  and  popu- 
larity of  Shamai,  the  prince  could  not  help  bowing  to  popular 
sentiment  and  showing  respect  to  the  favorite  of  the  hour. 

It  would  require  a  volume  of  many,  many  pages  to  demon- 
strate how  each  one  of  the  regulations  instituted  was  directed 
against  the  priests,  how  deeply  it  injured  them,  and  in  what 
measure  it  curtailed  their  previous  unlimited  sphere  of  action ; 
also,  especially,  how  the  dispute  between  Hillel  and  Shamai 
concerning  the  susceptibility  to  uncleanness  of  vessels  used  at 
grape  and  olive  pressing  concerned  the  priests.  Even  then,  a 
person  not  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  those  times 
could  scarcely  understand  it ;  but  we  would  request  that  the 
eighteen  regulations  be  again  carefully  perused,  and  it  will  read- 
ily be  observed  by  even  the  casual  reader,  from  the  hints  given, 
that  the  ten  ordinances  *  relating  to  Therumah  were  directed 
entirely  against  the  priests,  and  the  four  concerning  uncleanness 
were  in  part  against  the  priests  and  in  part  against  mingling  with 
other  nations;  as  for  the  regulation  against  mingling,  that  goes 
without  saying,  while  the  regulations  concerning  the  Mikvah  and 
Sabbath  were  but  incidental  and  trivial  matters  intended  as  a 
screen  for  the  grave  importance  of  those  mentioned. 

*  We  have  not  enumerated  the  ordinances  in  their  regfular  order  of  sequence  as 
to  the  time,  for  they  are  scattered  in  the  Talmud  without  any  order,  but  arranged 
them  more  in  accordance  with  their  importance  and  severity,  according  to  the  com- 
mentary of  Rashi. 


^/iaJ/M«lliiv 


v/viivwi*  • 


RARYO^     ^tUBRARYOc, 


^.jo'^    ^-sojnvDio' 


IrtJI 


^ta  <k>  •••>«■«. 


«uc.itiji\/rDr/K 


%a3AINn-3Vls^^ 
.i(i^ANnFl£r.> 


University  of  California  Library 
Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


^      = 


I 


g 

I 


Phone 
310/82 

Jl^N  0  5  200?^ 


1 9k 


S 
^ 


UUNIV!R% 

-n         g 

MEDNIVERS/A      ^UJSANCEUf^ 


newats 

^-9*1 88 


-i^^lUBRARYOc 


AOfCALIFOff/ig 


^OFCAUFORij.      AOfCAUFOR^ 


ommfP 


i\EUNTO/^ 


pumsov 

\WtUNlVFR% 


^J3130NVS01^ 


{^jMUBRARYO^ 


TOnVDiO- 


^OFCAUFOftij^ 


''^ommr0' 


^^w^^lNlVER% 


^<?A«vaaniv^^     ^i^Auviianj^*       '^i'juaNVsmy 


\\\EUNIVERJ//i 


^SNlUBRAin^ 


L  005  488  033    1 


<i?uoNvs(n^ 


,\WCllNIVfW/A 


<f^«NVSm^       '^/5a3AINn-3ftV^ 


IG^ 


5        ^ 


^:<^VllBRARYQc.       -r^lilBRARYOc 


^:^tlJNIVES% 


^lOSANCf^r^ 


^i»ojnvojo=^    ^ojnvDjo'^^      -^mm-^ 


^OfCALIFOff^      ^0FCA1IF0% 


^^\«UNIVER%5t 


^<?Aiivaani^     ^^Aavaan-# 


%UDNVSOr 


%eMNnK^^ 


^\WElINIvrey/^      ^lOSANCfl%        ^lUBRARYO^.      -^UBRARYOc 


<i5u!}NYsoi^    ^aaAiNnavc^^      %)jnv3-jo'^ 

^\WFUNIVER%       ^^lOSANCE^r^        ^OFCAlIFOft^ 


AOf-CAUFt 


^'^iJDNvsoi^    %a3AiNn-3\«^     ^<?AHYaani^    ^Aavaan-^      \ 


5  " 


^UBRARYOr,        v^UNIVERS/^ 


clOSANCEl^^ 


^iiOinvDjo^    %^\mi^      ^i^oNVso)'^    "^jAwa-av^^ 


aOFCAIIFORij.       AOFCAUF0«fc.         «MUNIVER!/a      AjclOSAMCflft* 

i\^i  i\4?ft  ti2^i  i>;rt!l 


